Public-domain · open source
OpenJurist

556 F.2d 450

Docket No. 77-1358.

United States v. Chadwick

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals

Decided June 27, 1977.

Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals · decided 1977-06-27

2 counsel of record

Applies 18 U.S.C. § 1955

Relies on United States v. Briggs

Good law ✅— No negative treatment on recordhow we know

Opinion by (per_curiam) · Decided 1977-06-27

How this case has been cited

Cited by 51 later decisions — most recently October 2018 · most notably City of Santa Clara v. Andrus (1978), United States v. Ziperstein (1979)

42 federal appellate ·

20019771980199020002010decided

Later decisions citing this case, by decade. The current decade is in progress, and our corpus holds fewer opinions from the most recent years, so the latest bars are undercounted — not a real decline.

View the full empirical analysis of this case →

¶1Patrick R. Doyle, Las Vegas, Nev., for unindicted co-conspirator and appellant.

¶2Lawrence J. Semenza, U. S. Atty., Las Vegas, Nev., for plaintiff-appellee.

¶3Before BROWNING and ANDERSON, Circuit Judges, and CRARY, * District Judge.

¶5PER CURIAM:

¶6An indictment charging five named defendants and others with conducting an illegal gambling business in violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1955 named appellant an unindicted participant in the crime. Appellant moved that his name be expunged from the indictment. The district court denied the motion. We reverse.

¶7Under the circumstances of this case charging appellant with the offense without making him a defendant was beyond the authority of the grand jury and a denial of due process. See United States v. Briggs, 514 F.2d 794 (5th Cir. 1975). The government argues it was necessary to name appellant because a gambling business is illegal under the applicable statute only if it involves five or more persons. Other methods less injurious to appellant were available to satisfy the statutory requirement. Id. at 804-05.

¶8Reversed.

/556/f2d/450 · .json · Public domain