United States v. Suazo, 14f4th70

Suazo was indicted in the District of Maine (superseding indictment Mar. 2018) for conspiracy to distribute fentanyl and cocaine that allegedly ran through Mar. 14, 2018 across Maine, New Hampshire, and Massachusetts.
He was detained pretrial (Mar. 2018–Feb. 27, 2019), later released on bail, and arrested again Dec. 4, 2019 for violating a no-contact release condition.
On Jan. 31, 2020 the government moved to dismiss the Maine superseding indictment under Rule 48(a), asserting the admissible evidence would not permit conviction; the Maine court granted dismissal without prejudice and no jury was ever empaneled.
That same day the government filed a complaint (and later an indictment) in the District of New Hampshire charging distribution and a conspiracy on or about Jan. 18, 2018 (40+ grams of fentanyl).
Suazo moved in New Hampshire to dismiss (vagueness, duplicity, and double jeopardy), arguing the New Hampshire conspiracy duplicated the Maine conspiracy and that the Maine dismissal was a de facto acquittal or bad-faith dismissal; the New Hampshire court denied the motions and ordered a bill of particulars.
On interlocutory appeal the First Circuit affirmed denial of Suazo’s double jeopardy motion (jeopardy never attached) and dismissed without prejudice the remainder of his appeal for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy attached from the Maine proceedings	Maine dismissal was effectively an acquittal or constructively attached because the government acted in bad faith	Jeopardy never attached: no jury sworn; dismissal without prejudice is not an acquittal; presumption of good faith for Rule 48(a)	Denied — jeopardy did not attach; double jeopardy claim fails
Whether Rule 48(a) dismissal may create constructive jeopardy when granted in bad faith	Court should hold an evidentiary hearing to test government good faith and treat dismissal as acquittal if bad faith proven	No double jeopardy doctrine creating constructive attachment on Rule 48(a) dismissal; misconduct claims are not reviewable interlocutorily	Rejected — court will not expand double jeopardy to cover Rule 48(a) dismissals; Suazo’s request is procedurally improper
Whether the appellate court has interlocutory jurisdiction over Suazo’s other claims (vagueness, prosecutorial misconduct, due process)	Suazo attempted to include these in the interlocutory appeal	Such claims are not within the Abney interlocutory exception for double jeopardy	Dismissed without prejudice for lack of interlocutory jurisdiction

Abney v. United States, 431 U.S. 651 (interlocutory appeal allowed when further proceedings would constitute double jeopardy)
Martin Linen Supply Co. v. United States, 430 U.S. 564 (whether judge's ruling is an acquittal depends on substance, not label)
Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (jeopardy attaches when trial begins)
Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184 (double jeopardy protects against repeated attempts to convict)
United States v. Keene, 287 F.3d 229 (1st Cir.) (limits on interlocutory appeals in criminal cases; Abney exception)
United States v. Bonilla Romero, 836 F.2d 39 (1st Cir.) (jeopardy attachment: jury empanelment or bench trial start)
United States v. Moller-Butcher, 723 F.2d 189 (1st Cir.) (dismissal without prejudice is not an adjudication on the merits)
United States v. Hollywood Motor Car Co., Inc., 458 U.S. 263 (appeals court lacks interlocutory jurisdiction to review prosecutorial vindictiveness denials)