United States v. Amaya, No. 13-2378 (8th Cir. 2014)
Annotate this CaseDefendant was convicted of conspiracy to launder money and conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute methamphetamine, cocaine and marijuana after two mistrials. The district court denied defendant's motion to dismiss based on double jeopardy and declined to impose sanctions for the government's failure to disclose its GPS surveillance. The court concluded that the district court's factual finding that the government did not intend to goad defendant into requesting a mistrial was not clearly erroneous where the prosecutor's conduct did not reflect an intent to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause. Neither of defendant's mistrials resulted from government acts intended to provoke a mistrial and defendant's conviction did not violate double jeopardy. The court also concluded that the district court did not abuse its discretion in declining to impose sanctions where the district court found that the government did not act in bad faith by failing to disclose the GPS surveillance, any prejudice to defendant was modest and had for the most part been remedied, and sanctions were unnecessary to ensure compliance. Accordingly, the court affirmed the judgment of the district court.
Court Description: Criminal case - Criminal law. The district court's factual finding that the government did not intend to goad defendant into requesting a mistrial was not clearly erroneous and the court affirms the district court's determination that the prosecutor's conduct did not reflect an intent to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause; neither of defendant's mistrials resulted from government acts intended to cause a mistrial and his conviction after two mistrials did not violate double jeopardy; while the government violated the stipulated discovery order by failing to disclose GPS surveillance, the district court did not err in determining that government did not act in bad faith, that any prejudice to defendant had been been remedied and that no further sanction was necessary to assure the government's future compliance.
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.