of Appeals for the Second Circuit, and the US sought review of the sentences imposed upon him as a dangerous special offender. The Court of Appeals unanimously acknowledged the convictions. By a divided vote the court dismissed the Government's appeal on double jeopardy grounds.At the earlier racketeering trial, the evidence showed that DiFrancesco was involved in an arson-for-hire scheme in Rochester, New York that was responsible for eight fires. At the second trial, the evidence showed that he participated in the 1970 "Columbus Day bombings", including the bombing of the federal building at Rochester.Prior to the first trial, the Government filed with the trial court a notice alleging that DiFrancesco was a dangerous special offender. The notice recited the Government's intention to seek enhanced sentences on racketeering counts in the event DiFrancesco was convicted at trial. After he was found guilty, a dangerous offender hearing was held. At the hearing, the Government relied upon the testimony offered at the trial and upon public documents that attested to other convictions of DiFrancesco for the Columbus Day bombings, for loansharking, and for murder.The District Court made findings of fact and ruled that DiFrancesco was a dangerous special offender within meaning of the statute. The court found that DiFrancesco's criminal history reveals a pattern of habitual and knowing criminal conduct of the most violent and dangerous nature against the lives and property of the citizens of this community.The United States then took its appeal saying that the District Court abused its judgement in sentencing that amounted to additional imprisonment for the respondent. The dismissal of the Government's appeal by the Court of Appeals rested upon it's conclusion that to subject to a defendant to the risk of substitution of a greater sentence is to place him a second time in jeopardy of life or limb....
