the Motion In Limine. 4 . Defendant Borgesi also “intends to ask this Court to reconsider its prior ruling denying his request for a bill of particulars in the event that his motion is denied and he must proceed to trial.” Def. Borgesi’s Mot. to Preclude Trial 7 n. 1, ECF No. 1363. Because he does not formally move for a bill of particu lars at this time, the Court will not address the issue. 5 . Again, the Court has no reason to decide whether the issue was necessarily decided by the jury at the first trial. 6 . Furthermore, Defendant Borgesi may have waived his Double Jeopardy defense based on the prior RICO-conspiracy conviction by not raising a timely objection prior to the original trial, which triggered the same issues here. See United States v. Blyden, 930 F.2d 323 (3d Cir.1991) (<HOLDING>) 7 . The earlier indictment named Joseph
holding that a sua sponte dismissal of the charges during trial was not an acquittal that barred retrial based on double jeopardy holding that the trial courts dismissal of the charges after jeopardy had attached based on the prosecution witnesses failure to appear was not an acquittal and therefore double jeopardy did not prevent the court from reconsidering its decision and reinstating the charges holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial when defendant was not consulted or present holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial after defendant was found incompetent to stand trial in the midst of trial holding that defendant waived double jeopardy claim by obtaining severance of charges at first trial