The following excerpt is from USA. v. Byrne, 203 F.3d 671 (9th Cir. 2000):
In the present case, we need hold only that the Double Jeopardy Clause was not violated because it is clear from the facts underlying the present appeal that the district court's initial ruling on the defendant's motion for acquittal was not final. As we recognized in United States v. Blount, double jeopardy does not bar a district court from revising a ruling on a motion for acquittal when that ruling is tentative or rendered subject to reconsideration. See 34 F.3d 865, 868 (9th Cir. 1994). In the present case, the district
Page 675
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.