propriety of charging alternatively just the way it's cases of out the constitutional rule that protects an individual when a jury returns two verdicts for a single offense in this case based on the way the judge instructed the jury he treated one single of fast and by the way there were six offenses so i'll just kind of talk about one because they all apply the judge divided a single offense into two offenses and had the jury render two verdicts for one single affects you know if you could just do the so i can understand you're focused on the fact that the verdict form had count one with two boxes one of the verdict forms as you find guilty and then they could check one of two boxes which they did they found in each of the cases they were guilty she was guilty of second box checked under count one was with a prohibited substance in blood resulting in the death of scott garner and then and there was the identical form which they also filled out which i found him found her not guilty in which they checked box number one which was not guilty of being driving under the actual physical or in the actual physical control while under the influence of a controlled substance in nevada it was one of the best or alternative theories to prove one of the best so when the jury was instructed they were instructed to come back and find a verdict two times for the same of fast in fact these are identical offense they're not just saying like a lesser included these two means of committing the same offense absolutely the nevada supreme court denied us the williams relief on the double jeopardy issue by applying blocker which i this case that reasonable to conclude that the jury simply found jessica williams guilty under one of the theories but not guilty on the alternative theory one means the not the other means is that inconsistent you cannot be found guilty of the theory you're on or you can only be i mean goes ok for me to means to an end we don't know what would have happened if the judge would have left them all in one verdict and had a special verdict a special verdict as we all know is one one of these forms not where they simply had a choice of checking as they did on the guilty let's just say they were given the guilty form which you can find her guilty of driving under the influence while under the influence check that box and or check box two and all they had done was check box two and they weren't given the second form which says not guilty with would your argument be one means and not guilty of the second means there are two verdicts jeff fisher again you don't find someone guilty of the means you find him guilty of the charge she was charged with driving under the influence that was the charge and there were two ways there were two rows the government could use to prove that chart in this case it's uncontroverted that jessica lilian's was acquitted of count one count one contains only one char trial and the verdicts were rendered simultaneously why can't both verdicts be up held both very can't be upheld your honors because you can only have one verdict for one offense office there had been a new trial granted by the district judge and therefore twenty twenty to forty one was the standard and that's a much lower standard than a twenty two fifty four standard however jesca meets both standards  the still case said while a judge may terminate a prosecution for a variety of procedural reasons but jury simply has to both the verdict of guilty and of not guilty by the by definition represent a factual resolution of the charge of fats and that's the stove case and if you think about it also it certainly is legal legally sound because you can't have  single of pants you can't have a an acquittal in a conviction it would be like in a baseball game where the winning run comes the home plate and the umpire says he's safe any outs you can't have to call for not one if they were in one verdict form there would have only been want to quibble necessary but the way the judge did it she had to get two acquittals are you arguing jury confusion i'm having trouble understanding the argument because as judge nelson has pointed out this really is not a santa maria case because everything is taking place in a single trial and as jeff fisher has pointed out well they've got to means to the same conviction and the jury has found one exists and the other  why isn't that what happened here it didn't happen because the jury was asked to give a verdict on each ok of the charge whites are you arguing jury confusion not your you know not jury confusion i don't know what took place in the minds there was one single charge in there should have been one single verdict and by dividing it up the prejudice is under the under the fifth i'm in a closet that is once there's an acquittal of the chart it's over and even though it was  chief justice pro the way he ruled against jessica's williams case is that he went with the simultaneous ok but he admitted like in the in the price case and i say supreme court where there there pending double jeopardy in the single jeopardy but this is not double jeopardy double jeopardy is not to be decided on a timing issue in other words if there simultaneous visit one second is that now one minute is it five minutes afterwards then we get double jeopardy it's  jeopardy from the beginning if it's double jeopardy if you try the case on the monday it was double jeopardy it was double jeopardy before so you please don't be confused by the science simultaneous the key issue is you cannot have two verdicts on it's a double jeopardy was there an acquittal if there is an acquittal of the charge it doesn't it doesn't matter whether it's in the same trial or if it's some time later and the simultaneous rendering and that's what judge pirro went on again if you think about it you mean it's not double jeopardy if they were rendered simultaneously but if there's five minutes difference then what do we have double jeopardy ten minutes what but i don't think the issue of five or ten minutes separation the issue is whether or not they are successive prosecutions and we quite understand both summary and i gather still involve successive prosecutions this isn't a single prosecution i think the issue that i like him and i don't like it makes a difference provides i think what the petitioner the appellant is attempting to do here is to create a fourth protection that no court anywhere has ever provided for there was one prosecution there were no multiple punishments in this successful prosecution after a conviction or multiple punishments he's relying on and i think he doesn't do that because he simply cannot the theory that he relies on that you cannot have more than one verdict is the case is absolutely not the law has never been accepted by any court any single time a prosecutor alleges alternative means or any time a judge instructs on a lesser included offense which we know is the same the fence for double jeopardy purposes as the primary found some of the brown cases you're going to have a choice that the jury has to make any time a jury goes with one alternative means or any time the jury finds a lesser included offense which they have to be instructed on when requested by the defense we're going to get what the u s supreme court calls an implicit acquittal on all the other charges no court has ever found that that kind of an acquittal somehow he the conviction on an alternative means or on a lesser included because the problem is it happens every day in something american jurisdiction that a criminal defendant is found guilty on a lesser included mr watkins theory and in all those cases there would not be a conviction but let me ask you to come back to the verdict form here in the question that i ask counsel for ms williams and that is if the foreman is katie's has simply been to form the guilty form there was no not guilty form and they had checked the one of the two boxes are you saying that the unchecked box in that case would have been an implicit and then that is overturned on appeal that was price versus georgia you can go back to the state was permitted to go back and retry on the lesser included that destroys mr watkins theory because we know that a lesser included a greater and greater of fans are the same offense for double jeopardy purposes in these cases the state is allowed to go back and read prosecute on that muster including not the greater because of the implicit acquittal but definitely on the lesser included you don't have in my case you don't have success of prosecutions again double jeopardy only has three protections none of those are implicit or none of those are are called for in this case because you didn't have  appropriate rule under ohio versus johnson underprice versus georgia there was one prosecution that is the key issue here there are only three protections under the government jeopardy clause we have yet to hear which of those protection implicated in this theory that there ought to be a fourth protection somehow added i would point out that the argument that you can only have one verdict in a case is rejected by all the cases any time when you have a conviction on a lesser included offense by definition according to scream court because that constitutes an implicit acquittal on the greater offense you have to hurt exe in that case you've got an implicit acquittal on the greater charge you've got a conviction on the lesser included charge you have a conviction the difference in arguments here is mr watkins argues that that kind of an acquittal along with the conviction in the same trial somehow negates the prosecution negates the conviction our position that's in conform many with what the u s supreme court has repeatedly says is in that kind of case in a single prosecution a conviction and an acquittal equals a conviction that's what the supreme court has prosecution like that like a mediating divide i think was the language in that case it was one prosecution that's the key issue that is the fact that williams has to ignore in this case in order to win before this court in the petition we address that issue very briefly verdict forms do not create offenses if this judge if this trial court judge made a mistake the mistake he made was in being too specific in being too detail oriented because he did something that under the under shad versus arizona he did not need to do it we know under sad that juries don't even have to decide which of alternative means they're choosing as long as the offen long is the jury believes the offense was committed it doesn't matter if that verdict is six to six or three to nine or even twelve nothing it's not relevant what the number is as long as the overriding offense is found and i can see that shadows of due process of due process case it was not of a double jeopardy case but those cases have to be read in perry material because you've got you're dealing with similar issues it doesn't matter which of the issue the only issue here is that the jury found that the crime had been committed this is there is no claim there are multiple punishments in this case because there was only one prosecution we believe that's the one in the chase  then you can be punished and in this case she could have been punished twice and she will state that facing weather didn't happen she was placed in multiple planetree to be been punished twice she could have been found guilty of of under both of the  legislator for example if i may say this under if the legislature could have said by the way we're going to have one charge here and i can get just one one char in other words it's only one single offense but we're going to say that we want multiple punishments for the theory another was if you're convicted under the them based on the single charge but each of the theories we've got multiple punishments and under missouri versus hunter that would be unlawful they didn't do that in this case what they said there's only again one single charge and we're not going to allow multiple punishment but the key here is that you can't hand this is the whole key of the of the jessica williams case you can't have to bernie for one facts and what and what opposing counsel says about lesser included lesser included or separate offenses has nothing to do with yes well because this is an anomaly you can't find any other chased in the country like this because they're handled down below and the case is dismissed this is an anomaly this is as much of an anomaly as the santa maria case but the key is was if i was jessica williams acquitted if she's acquitted then you look in what was she acquitted up she can't be acquitted of a theory we know that she can only be acquitted of the charge so in this case how in domicile it is she was acquitted in found guilty of the exact same char