Successive prosecutions for separate offenses arising out of separate transactions are not violative of due process.

—evidence that defendant had been seen in detective's office two months prior to bank robbery relevant to detective's identification of defendant

Moreover if the charges are splintered, the Government would be accused of harassment that would prejudice it before the jury.

The fact that evidence of the offenses charged in the current indictment was admitted at the earlier trial does not, by itself, implicate the double jeopardy clause, as those offenses were not charged in the first indictment.

We are not convinced that successful police operations against narcotics in this jurisdiction depend upon proceedings of such an initial indictment is dismissed or dropped but later reinstated and does not fall within the protection against piecemeal prosecution.

It emphasizes the fact that the purpose of the statute, to bring Selective Service violators to the bar of justice as rapidly as possible, was violated.

—held that pre-indictment delays may have a bearing on whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to a speedy trial has been violated.

Westover has the burden of showing that the conspiracy of which he was acquitted and the conspiracy of which he was subsequently convicted constituted a single overall conspiracy.

This circuit has held that it is appellants' burden to establish that two conspiracies charged are the same.

But Miller's testimony did not directly connect the defendant with Agent Boston, nor Agent Boston with 1808 23rd Avenue.

[CITATION] Loyola of Los Angeles Law Review