2009 D e c i sion s O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit

10-21-2009 

# U SA v . J ohn R i ga s
P r e c e de n t i al or N on-P r e c e de n t i al : P r e c e de nt i al D ocke t N o . 08-3218

F o l low thi s a nd a dd it ion al work s at : http://d i git alc ommon s .l a w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009

Thi s de c i sion i s br ou ght t o you for f r e e a nd ope n a c c e s s b y the O p inion s of the U nit e d S t at e s C our t of Appe al s for the Thir d C ir c uit at V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. It h as be e n a c c ept e d for inclusion in 2009 D e c i sion s b y a n author i z e d a dmini s tr at or of V i l l a no va U nive r sity S choo l of L a

w Di git al Reposit or y

. F or mor e inform at ion, p le as e c ont a ct Be n j amin

. C a rl s on@l a

w . vi l l a no va . e du

. Re c omme nde d C it at ion

" U SA v . J o hn R i gas " (2009). 2009 D e cisio n s . P ape r 334. http://d i git alc ommon s .l a

w . vi l l a nova . e du/thir dc ir c uit_2009/334P RE CE DE NT I AL
UN I TED STATES CO UR T OF A PP EALS F O R T H E T H IR D C IR C U IT

_____________ N o. 08- 3218

_____________

UNI T E D S T AT E S OF AM E RI CA ,

v. JO H N J. R IG A S ; TI M O TH Y J

. RI G A S, A pp el l ants

. O n A p p e a l f

ro m th e D istric t C o u rt f o r th e M id d le D istric t o f P e n n sy lv a n ia ( N o. 05- cr - 00402) D istri ct Ju d g e: H o n o rab le Jo h n E

. Jo n es III

___________ A r gued J ul y14, 2009
B efor e: R E N D E L L , FU E N T E S, and R O T H , C i r cui tJ udges ( O pi ni on Fi l ed: O ct ober21, 2009)2 L a wr e n c e G. M c M i c h a e l , E s q . ( AR GUE D) M at t hew P. Far anda- D i edr i ch, E s q. Pat r i ck M

. N or t hen, E s q. D i l w or t h Paxs on 1500 M arketSt r eet , St e. 3500E Phi l adel phi a, PA 19102
J os eph U

. M et z, E s q. D i l w or t h Paxs on 112 M ar ketSt r eet , 8t h Fl oor H arr i s bur g, PA 17101

C o u n se l f

o r A p p e llan ts

Ge o r g e J

. Ro c k t a s h e l , E s q . ( AR GUE D) M ar t i n C

. C ar l s on, E s q. O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 240 W es tT hi r d St r eet , St e. 316 W i l l i amspor t , PA 17701
L or na N

. G r aham, E s q. O ffi ce of U ni t ed St at es A t t or ney 235 N or t h W as hi ngt on A venue P. O

. B ox 309, Sui t e 311 Scr ant on, PA 18503

C ouns el forA ppel l ee3 OPI NI ON O F THE COURT

FU E N T E S, C i r cui tJ udge: D efe ndant s J ohn a n d Ti mot hyR i gas ( t he “Ri gas es ”) s eek t o pr event t hei r t r i al i n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a for cons pi r acy t o defr aud t he U ni t ed St at es and for s ubs t ant i ve t ax evas i on v iolati ons . T he R i gas es , w ho w er e convi ct ed of cons pi r acyand s ubs t ant i ve fr aud count s i n t he Sout hern D i s t r i ct o f N ew Y ork, bu tacqu i t t ed o f w i re fr aud , cl ai m t hat their r epr os ecut i on i n Penns y l vani a vi ol at es t hei rr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om d o u b le je o p a rd y . T he R i gas es ’ pr i nci p al a r gum enti s t hatt he al l eged c o n sp ir a c y(to d e f

ra u d th e U n ited S tate s) c h a rg e d in Penns y lvan i a w as for m ed byt he s ame i l l egal agr eementt hat creat ed the N ew Y ork con spi racy(t o co m m i toff enses a gainst t he U ni t ed St at es). B ec aus e cons pi r acyt o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es and consp i r acyt o comm i toffe ns es agai ns tt he U ni t ed St at es ar e di ffe r entw ay s of vi ol at i ng a s i ngl e gene r al cons pi r acy sta tu te, 1 8 U .S .C . § 3 7 1 , the R ig a se s m a in tain th a t th e ysh o u ld h a v e b e e n p r o s e c u t e d und e rb o t h t h e o r i e s i n t h e s a me p ro c e e d in g . T h e D istric t C o u rt d e n ied th e R ig a s e s ’ m o tio n to d ism iss th e P e n n sy lv a n ia in d ictm e n t. W e agr ee w i t h t he R i gas es t hat18 U

. S. C

. § 371 cr eat es a s i ngl e s t atut or y offe ns e. B eca us e w e al s o fi nd t hatt he R i gas es have e s t abl i s hed a pr i m a fa ci e ca s e that there w as onl yoneT he fol l ow i ng fac t s r el at e pr i nci pal l yt o t he ar eas of 1 o v e rla p b e tw e e n th e N e w Y o rk In d ic tm e n t an d P e n n sy lv a n ia In d ictm e n t. T h e ya re d e riv e d f ro m th e in d ictm e n ts in b o th cas es , as w el l as t he bac kgr ound s ect i ons of the opi ni ons i s s ued byt he D i s t r i ctC our t s i n N ew Y or k and Penns y l vani a as w el l as t he C our tof A ppeal s fort he Second Ci r cui t

. See U ni t ed St at es v. R i gas , 565 F. Supp. 2d 620 ( M

. D

. Pa. 2008) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R i gas , 490 F. 3d 208 ( 2d C i r . 2007) , certdeni ed, 128 S. C t

. 1471 ( 2 0 0 8 ) ; U n i t e d S t a t e s v . Ri g a s , N o . 0 2

- c r - 1 2 3 6 , 2 0 0 8 WL 2 5 4 4 6 5 4 (S

. D

. N

. Y

. Ju n e 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 ). A delphi a had t w o clas ses of co m m o n st ock : C l ass A 2 exer ci s ed one vot e pers har e, w hi l e C l as s B exer ci s ed t en vot es pers har e. 4 co n sp ir atorial ag ree m en t, w e w il l r em an d to the D istri ct C o u rt to c o n d u c t a n e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g o n th e c o n s p ir a c yc o u n t.

I . Backg r ound 1 T h is a p p e a l ste m s f

ro m th e 2 0 0 2 c o llap se o f A d e lp h ia C om m un ic at i ons C orpor at i on ( “A del phi a”)

. J ohn R i gas w as the f o u n d er o f A d elph ia. U n ti l 20 0 2 , h e se rve d as A d elph ia’s C hai r m an and Chi ef Execut i ve O ffi cer( “C E O ”). H i s s on, T i m ot hyR i gas , w as a boar d m em b er a nd C hi ef Fi nanci al O ff icer (“C F O ”). U n til its d isa stro u s c o llap se in 2 0 0 2 , A d e lp h ia w as t he s i xt h l ar ges tcabl e t el evi s i on pr ovi deri n t he U ni t ed St at es . A lt hough t he R i gas fami l ydi d notow n a maj or i t yof A del phi a’ s out s t andi ng comm on s t ock, t heyco nt r ol l ed a m aj or i t yof A del phi a’ s s har ehol dervot es . A s a r es ul t , t he R i gas 2 fami l yel ect ed ei ghtof A del phi a’ s ni ne di r ect or s and contr ol l ed5 al l of A delphi a’s corporat e affair s. In th e late 1 9 9 0 s, A d e lp h ia b e g a n a p ro c e ss o f ra p id exp ansi on byacqu i ri ng other cable o perat ors. Itfi nan ced these acqui s i t i ons byi s s ui ng new corpor at e s t ock a n d taki ng on c o rp o r a t e d e b t

. As a r e s u l t of t hi s p r o c e s s , Ad e l p h i a b e c a me hi ghl yl ever aged. I n or dert o avoi d di l ut i ng their contr ol of A del phi a, and t o cr eat e the appea r ance t hatA del phi a w as re d u c in g its d e b t b u rd e n , th e R ig a se s p u rc h a se d lar g e a m o u n ts o f A d e lp h ia s to c k a n d a ss u m e d A d e lp h ia’ s d e b t. A c c o rd in g to t he G overnm ent , t hes e tr ans act i ons w er e a s ham. W hen the true stat e o f A d elph ia’s fina n ce s a n d o p era ti o n s b ec am e c lear, A d e lp h ia c o lla p s e d

. P rio r to Ju n e 2 0 0 2 , A d e lp h ia’ s sto c k w a s re g iste re d w ith t he SE C and w as publ i cl yt r ade d on t he N A SD A Q N at i onal M ar ket Sy s t e m. I n J a n u a r y 2 0 0 2 , Ade l p h i a ’ s s t o c k t r a d e d at $3 1. 85

. B yJune 2 00 2, A delphi a’s st ock w as w orth p enn i es a s h a r e a n d wa s d e l i s t e d b yNAS DAQ. I n 2002, J ohn and Ti m ot hyR i gas w ere indi ct ed i n t he Sout hern D i s t r i ctof N ew Y or k. T he N ew Y or k I ndict m ent c h a rg e d , am o n g o th e r o f f e n se s, a w id e -ra n g in g c o n sp ir a c yto l ootA del phi a and t o hi de both the R i gas es ’ pl underand A del phi a’ s w eak fin anci al condi t i on fr om t he publ i c and the S E C , al l i n v i olat i on of 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 3 71

. A j urysubse q u e n tly con vict ed the R i gases on t he co nsp ira c y cou nt, as w el l as a num berof s ubs t ant i ve fr aud off ens es . H ow eve r, t he R i gas es w ere acqu i t t ed of w i re fraud and one of the bank fraud co un t s. I n 2005, t he R i gas es w er e i ndi ct ed i n t he M i ddl e D i s t r i ct of Penns y lvan ia and cha r ged w i t h cons pi r acyt o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 3 7 1 b y ev adi ng t heIn 2 00 8, a ft e rt he D i s t r i c tCour tde ni e d the Ri ga s es’ 3 d o u b le j eopar dym ot i on, a Penns y l vani a gr and j ur yr etur ned a Super cedi ng I ndi ctm entaddi ng addi t i onal s ubstan t i ve t ax evas i on char ges r el at ed t o t he 2001 t ax y ear . T he Super cedi ng In d ictm e n t als o a d d s a d d iti o n a l d e tail to th e c o n sp ira c yc o u n t. O urr evi ew i s bas ed on the or i gi nal I ndi ctm entbefor e the D istric t C o u rt a t th e tim e it is s u e d its d e c isio n , b u t w e n o te di ffe r ence s betw een the I ndi ct m entand Super cedi ng I ndi ct m ent w h e re re lev a n t. 6 t axes due on thei ri l l

- got t en gai ns . J ohn and Ti m ot hyR i gas w er e al s o eac h char ged w i t h t hr ee c ount s of t ax eva s i on fort he t ax y ear s 1998- 2000. 3

A . T he N ew Y ork A ct i on O n Sept ember 23, 2002, a gr and j ur ys i t t ing i n t he S ou t hern D i stri ctof N ew Y ork returned a n indi ct m ent agai nst J ohn and T i m ot hy R i gas , M i chae l R i gas ( A del phi a’ s E xecut i ve V ice P reside n t of

O p era ti o n s an d an o ther so n o f J o h n R igas ), a n d M ich a e l M u lca h e y(a n A d e lp h ia e x e c u tiv e b u t n o t a m e m b e r o f th e R ig a s f

a m ily). S e e U n ite d S ta te s v . R ig a s , e t a l., N o . S 1 -0 2 -c r-1 2 3 6 (S .D .N .Y .). A su p e rc e d in g in d ictm e n t, r etur ned i n Ju l y2003, char ged the def endant s w i t h cons pi r acy t o comm i tan off

ens e aga i ns tt he U ni t ed St at es i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S

. C

. § 3 7 1

. T h e objects all eg ed b ythe c o n sp ir ac yco u n t w ere num er ous : s ecur i t i es fra u d i n vi ol at i on of 15 U

. S. C

. §§ 78j ( b) and 78ff and 17 C

. F. R

. § 240. 10b- 5; w i r e fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. §§ 1343 and 1346; m aki ng fal s e and mi s l eadi ng s t at ement s i n SE C fi l i ngs in vi ol at i on of 15 U

. S. C

. § 78ff; fal s i fi cat i on of the books of a publ i c companyi n vi ol at i on of 157 U .S .C . § § 7 8 m (b )( 2 )( A ), 7 8 m (b )( 5 ), a n d 7 8 f f , a n d 1 7 C .F .R . § 240. 13b2- 1; and bank fr aud i n vi ol at i on of 18 U

. S. C

. § 1344. T h e R ig a se s w e re a lso c h a rg e d in tw e n ty -tw o su b sta n tiv e c o u n ts o f w ir e f rau d , b an k fra u d , an d sec u ri ti es frau d

. T h e N ew Y o rk Ind ict m en t w as su p p lem en ted b ya B il l o f P arti cu lars o n Jan u ary 2 , 2 0 0 4

. A ft era four

- and- a- hal f m ont h tr i al , t he j ur yfound J ohn and Ti m ot hy R i gas gui l t y of: ( 1) cons pi r acyt o comm i ts ecur i t i es fr aud, t o m ake f

al s e s t at ement s t o t he Secur i t i es and Exchange C om m i ssi on (“SE C ”), t o fal si fy A delphi a’s bo ok s and records, and t o comm i tbank fr aud; ( 2) s ecur i t i es fr aud i n connec t i on w i t h the purchase o r s al e of A delphi a C l ass A st ock , deb entur es, an d n o tes; an d (3) b an k f ra u d

. T h eyw ere ac q u itted o f w ir e fra u d

. T h e juryd id n o t r ea ch a co n clus ion ab o u t w h ethe r w ir e f ra u d w a s a n o b

jec t o f th e c o n sp ira c y . T h e S e c o n d C irc u it r eve r s ed one of

t he tw o bank fr aud count s , butaff i r m ed the r emai ni ng convi ct i ons . R i gas , 490 F. 3d at236, 239. John R i gas r ecei ved a sent ence of fi v e y e a rs ’ i m pr ison m enton t he cons pi r acycount , and a t ot al combi ned sen te nce of

t w el ve y ear s on al l t he count s . U ni t ed St at es v. R i gas , N o. 02- cr - 1236, 2008 W L 2544654, at *7 ( S. D

. N

. Y

. J une 2 4 , 2 0 0 8 ). T im o thyR igas rec eive d a se n tenc e o f f ive y ea rs i mpr i s o n me n to n t h e c o n s p i r a c yc o u n t , a n d a t o t a l c o m bi ned s ent ence of seve nt een y ear s on al l count s . I d. Fi nanci al penal t i es w er e governed bya S e tt l e me n tA gr eementbetw een the G o v e rn m e n t an d th e R ig a s f a m ily , in c lu d in g Jo h n R ig a s, D o ris R igas , M i chae l R i gas , T i m ot hyR i gas , J ames Ri gas , and El l en R i gas V enet i s . T he Set t l ementA gr eementdi d notappl yt o any t ax v i olat i on s.T h e f o ll o w ing fa cts are tak en fro m the N ew Y o rk 4 I ndi ctm entunl es s ot herw i s e i ndi cat ed. 8 1. N e w Y or k C ons pi r ac y C ount C ountO ne of t he N ew Y or k I ndi ct m ental l eges a w i der angi ng cons pi r acy( 1) t o cr eat e the f als e appe ar ance t hat A d e lp h ia’ s o p e ra tin g p e rf o rm a n c e w a s s tro n g a n d th a t A d e lp h ia w as r educi ng i t s debtbur den, ( 2) t o us e A del phi a as s et s fort he p e rso n a l b e n e f

it o f m e m b e rs o f

th e R ig a s f

a m ily , an d (3 ) to m ake f al s e and m i s l eadi ng s t at ement s . W e focus on t he s econd 4 as pectof t he cons pi r acy , w hi ch mostcl os el yover l aps w i t h t he c h a rg e s in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia I n d ictm e n t.

a. U s e of

A del phi a A s s et s f

or Pers onal P urpose s T he N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ental l eges t hatt he R i gas es us ed A d e lp h ia f

u n d s “ [ a ]m o n g o th e r th in g s . . . to c o n stru c t a g o lf c o u rse o n lan d p rim a rily o w n e d b y JO H N J. R IG A S ; ro u tin e ly used A delphi a’s c o rporat e ai rcr aftfor t heirpersonal affai rs , w i t ho ut r ei m b u rs em ent t o A delphi a; and used at l east a p p ro x im a tely$ 2 5 2 ,1 5 7 ,1 7 6 in A d e lp h ia f u n d s to p a ym a rg in cal l s agai ns t l oans t o t he R i gas fami l y . ” N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent ¶ 6 2 (e m p h a s is a d d e d ). T h e N e w Y o r k B ill o f P a rticu lar s p ro v id e d sp e c if ic al lega ti ons abouts om e of the “othert hi ngs ” the R i gas es us ed A del phi a funds for

. For exampl e, acc o rdi ng t o t he B i l l of P a rticu lar s: A d e lp h ia p u rc h a se d re a l es tate f ro m R ig a s f

a m ily m ember s above mar ketval ue w i t houtt he pr oper t ybei ng convey ed t o A del phi a; A del phi a pur chas ed r eal es t at e forR i gas f a m i l y m e m b e r s a n d p a i d t o m a i n ta in a n d r e n o v a t e t h a tp r o p e r t y;T he Second Ci r cui tdet erm i ned that 5 [t ] he evi dence at[the N ew Y or k] t r i al s how ed that t h r o u g h o u tt h e p e r i o d o f t h e c o n s p i r a c y, D efe ndant s t ook over$200 m i l l i on dol l ar s fr om A del p hi a’ s C as h M anage m entSy s t em for personal expen ses r ang i ng from $2 00 t o p urchase 10 0 p ai rs of bed room sl i pp ers for T i m othyR i gas, t o ov er $ 3 m i l l i on t o pr oduce a fi l m byE l l en R ig a s, to $ 2 0 0 m ill io n to p a y o f f R ig a s f a m ily m ar gi n l oans . T he m i s s i ng m oneyw as obs cur ed b y th e c o m m in g lin g o f c a sh b e tw e e n A d e lp h ia and t he [Ri gas M anage d E nt i t i es ] and the [Ri gas N on- C ab le E nt i t i es ]

. . . . N o pr om i s s or ynot es w e re e v e r sig n e d in f

a v o r o f A d e lp h ia, a n d , in so m e in sta n c e s, p e rso n a l ex p e n se s w e re f a lse ly recor ded as A d e lp hia’ s expen ses. . . . T he cash t r ans fer s t o t he R i gas fami l yw er e notr epor t ed as compensa t i on or l oans , as r equi r ed by t he SE C , or d isc lo se d to in v e sto rs a s re late d p a r ty t ransact i on s. R igas , 4 9 0 F

. 3 d at 21 8 (fo o tno te om itted). 9 A del phi a pai d t he R i gas es ’ p rop er t yt axes and i ns ur ance pr emi um s ; A d el phi a pai d gol f cl ub m ember s hi p dues fort he R i ga s e s , p a i d e x p e n s e s r e l a t e d t o El l e n Ri g a s ’ s wed d i n g , a nd pur chas ed 100 pai r s of s l i pper s for T i m ot hy R i gas . T he N ew Y or k B i l l of Par t i cul ar s al s o al l eges t hatA del p hi a made chari t able contr i bu t i on s on b ehalf of t he R i gases. 510 i . C as h A dvances Fr om about 1999 t o 2002, “A del phi a adva nced mi l l i ons of dol l ar s i n cas h t o J O H N J

. R I G A S, T I M O T H Y J

. R I G A S and M I C H A E L J

. R I G A S, i n exce s s of their publ i cl ydi s cl os ed co mpe n s a t i o n . ” New Y o r k I n d i c t me n t¶ 1 6 9

. Ot h e ru n n a med f a m ily m e m b e rs a ls o re c e iv e d “ s u b s ta n tia l a m o u n ts o f c a s h .” Id. In abou t20 01 , John R i ga s b egan recei ving m on t hlycash paym ent s of about$1 m i l l i on. I n A pr i l 2 0 0 1 , t he R i gas es “ca us ed A del phi a t o fi l e an a m ended a nnual r epor t on For m 10- K , w hi ch fa l s el y under s t at ed t he t ot al amount of compensa t i on to [ th e R i gases and other s] byfai l i ng t o incl ud e t he[se] cash adv ances. ” Id. A ccordi ng t o the N ew Y ork B i l l of P art i cular s, t hes e ca s h advanc es t ot al ed nea r l y$80 m i l l i on.

i i . G olf C ou rse In Ju n e 2 0 0 1 , th e R ig a se s b e g a n c o n stru c tin g a g o lf cour s e on l and i n C ouder s por t , Penns y l vani a. A del phi a ow ned a sm a ll p o rtio n o f

th e lan d , w h ile J o h n R ig a s o w n e d th e re st. T he R i gas es us ed appr oxi m at el y$13 m i l l i on i n A del phi a funds o n g o lf c o u rs e e q u ip m e n t, d e v e lo p m e n t, a n d c o n s tru c tio n .

ii i. C o rp o ra te A ircr a ft A d e lp h ia o p e ra ted th re e a irp lan e s o u t o f a n a irp o rt in W el l s vi l l e, N ew Y or k. T he R i gas es , “and otherm ember s of the R i g a s f a m i l y , r out i nel yus ed the A del phi a A i rpl anes forper s onal t r avel ” w i t houtr ei m bur s i ng A del phi a. I d. ¶ 192.

i v. St ock P urchas es T he R i gas es al s o t ook A del phi a s t ock w i t houtpay i ng for i t an d u sed A del phi a as s et s t o payfort hei rpur chas es of11 A d elph ia st o ck

. T h e R igas fa m il yclaim ed that theyw ere r educi ng A del phi a’ s debt by pur chas i ng s ubs t ant i al amount s of A del p h i a s t o c k , b u tt h e yn e v e ra c tu a l l yp a i d f o rt h a ts t o c k. Inst ead, A delphi a “pu rport edlyw as com pen sat ed fo r tho se s ecur i t i es by ‘ as s um pt i ons ’ by cert ai n [R i gas Fam i l yE nt i t i es ] of deb tow e d b y A delphi a. ” N ew Y ork Indi ct m ent ¶ 74. T hese

“ a ss u m p tio n s” h a d n o f in a n c ial sig n if

ica n c e b e c a u se A d e lp h ia re m a in e d “

jo in tly a n d s e v e ra lly lia b le f o r a ll s u c h d e b ts .” Id

. A ccor di ng t o t he N ew Y or k B i l l of Par t i culars, t he R ig a se s a lso to o k sh a re s o f c o m m o n sto c k o w n e d b yA d e lp h ia fr om A del phi a’ s vaul tand pl ace d t hem i n an es cr ow acc ountfor t he bene fi t of t he B uffa l o Sabr es , a hocke yt eam ow ned byt he R i g a s f a m i l y. Fina ll y , t he R i gas fami l ypur chas ed A del phi a s t ock on m ar gi n us i ng s tock loans fr om a number of banks

. W hen the banks m ade mar gi n cal l s against th e l oans , t he R i gas es had A d e lp h ia p a yth e lo a n s. A c c o rd in g to th e N e w Y o rk In d ictm e n t, “[t ] he R igas F ami l ydi d notr ei m bur s e A del phi a fort he funds us ed t o payt he mar gi n cal l s . ” ¶ 185.

2 . N ew Y o rk W ire T ra n sfer C o u n ts T he s ubs t ant i ve count s i n the N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent in c lu d e d f

iv e w ire f

ra u d c o u n ts. T h e yc h a rg e d th a t A d e lp h ia m ade the fol l ow i ng fr au d u lent w i r e tr ans fer s : ( 1) a Sept ember 18, 2001 t r ans fer of $5 m i l l i on; ( 2) an O ct ober1, 2001 t r ans fer o f $ 4 .5 m i l lio n ; ( 3 ) a M a rc h 2 8 , 2 0 0 2 tr a n s f e r o f a b o u t $ 6 .4 m i l l i on; ( 4) a M ar ch 29, 2002 t r ans fer of about $3. 9 m i l l i on; and ( 5) a n Apr i l 1 2 , 2 0 0 2 t r a n s f e r o f a b o u t $ 4

. 3 mi l l i o n . T he R i gases w ere acquitt ed o f t hese ch arges.U n les s o therw ise i n d icated , the f o ll o w ing fa cts are 6 d e riv e d f

ro m th e a lleg a tio n s in th e o rig in a l P e n n sy lv a n ia In d ictm e n t. 12

B . T he P ennsyl vani a A ct i on O n O c to b e r 6, 20 0 5 , a g ra n d ju ry sittin g in th e M id d le D i s t r i ctof Penn sy l vani a r etur ned an i ndi ct m entchar gi ng J ohn and Ti m ot hyR i gas w i t h ( 1) one count of conspi r acyt o defr aud th e U n ited S tate s in v io latio n o f 1 8 U .S .C

. § 3 7 1 ; an d (2 ) six c o u n ts o f ta x e v a s io n in v io la tio n o f 2 6 U .S .C . § 7 2 0 1

. A ccordi ng t o the Pen nsy l van i a Indi ct m ent, t he R i gases’ con spi racyt o ev ade incom e t ax d at es back t o the lat e 19 80 ’s , sh o rtly a f

ter R ig a s fa m ily m e m b e rs so ld p riv a tely h e ld c a b le co m p an ie s t o A del phi a. A s a r es ul tof thi s t r ans act i on, R i gas 6 fam i l ym em bers pai d o ver $12

. 6 m i l l i on i n fed eral i nco m e t axes. “J O H N J. R I G A S and T I M O T H Y J

. R I G A S st at ed t o an A del phi a empl oy ee t hat t hey w oul d never payt hi s l ar ge amount of t axes agai n. ” Penns y l vani a I ndi ctm entat6, ¶¶ 1- 2. T i m ot hy R igas told “A d elph ia e m p loy ee s that the R igas fa m il ym em b ers s houl d nott ake l ar ge s al ar i es fr om A del phi a, buts houl d ‘ l i ve outof the company

. ’ ” I d. at6, ¶ 3. Shor t l yt her eaf

t er , t he R i g ase s began di ver t i ng funds f r o m A d e l p h i a a c c o u n t s t o R i g a s f a m i l y m e m b e r s a n d f

a m i l ycontroll ed ent i t i es . T he al l egat i ons aboutt hes e di ver t ed funds c l o s e l yp a r a l l e l t h e a l l e g a t i o n s i n t h e New Yo r k I n d i c t me n t : To m ake thes e t r ans fer s l ook l egi t i m at e t o t he publ ic an d out s i de au d it o rs, T im o thyR igas ac co u n ted f o r m an yo f th ese tr an sfe rs as “l oans or i nt er company r ece i vabl es ow ed t o A del phi a, s o as to e v a d e th e p a ym e n t o f in c o m e ta x e s o n th e d iv e rt e d f u n d s .”T he S uper cedi ng I ndi ctm ental l eges t hatt he R i gas es 7 diver t ed an add i t i on al $9 00 m i l l i on and cl ai m s a corr espon dingl yl argert ax loss

. 13 Penns y l vani a I ndi ct m ent at6- 7, ¶ 5. T he R i gas es us ed Ad e l p h i a ’ s f

u n d s t o p u r c h a s e t h e Bu f f a l o S a b r e s h o c k e yt e a m, t o pa yp e r s o n a l e x p e n s e s , t o b u i l d a g o l f c o u r s e , t o p a yf

or A del phi a s t ock, and t o paym ar gi n l oans us ed t o buyaddi t i onal A d e lp h ia sto c k . T h e R ig a se s a lso u se d A d e lp h ia’ s c o rp o ra te ai r cr aftforper s onal t r avel

. T i m ot hyR i gas o ccas i onal l ym ade fal se accou nti ng entr i es i nd i cat i ng t hat the R i gases had re p a id th e se lo a n s o r a ss u m e d liab ili tyf o r A d e lp h ia’ s co rp o ra te d e b t in excha nge fort he l oans . I n al l , t he Penns y l vani a i ndi ctm ent al l eges t hat t he R i gas es di ver t ed $1. 9 bi l l i on fr om A del phi a for t he per s onal benef

i t of R i gas fami l ym ember s , r es ul t i ng i n a t ax 7 l os s of over$300 m i l l i on. T he s ubs t ant i ve count s of t he i ndi ctm ent al l ege thatJ ohn Ri g a s p e r s o n a l l ye v a d e d a p p r o x i ma t e l y$ 5 1 mi l l i o n i n i n c o me t ax fort he y ear s 1998- 2000, and thatT i m ot hyR i gas evade d $85 m illio n in in c o m e ta x f

o r t h o s e y e a rs . I I . D i s cus s i on T he R i gas es m ai nt ai n t hatt he Penns y l vani a conspi r acy countvi ol at es t hei rr i ghtt o be fr ee f r om doubl e j eopar dy

. T hey ar gue that18 U

. S. C

. § 371 cr eat es a si ngl e st atut or yoffe ns e of c o n sp ir a c y , an d th a t th e yc a n o n lyb e tried o n c e f o r a sin g le cons pi r at or ial agr eementi n vi ol at i on of thats t atut e. T he R i gas es al s o m ai nt ai n t hatt he N ew Y or k j ur yconcl uded that t hey d i d n o t t a k e Ade l p h i a ’ s f u n d s f o r t h e i r p e r s o n a l u s e, and t h u s t h a tt h e s u b s t a n t i v e t a x e v a s i o n c o u n t s a r e b a r r e d b yt he14 col l at er al es t oppel component of doubl e j eopar dy

. T he D i s t r i ct C o u rt d e n ied th e R ig a se s’ m o tio n to d ism iss th e P e n n s ylv a n ia Indi ct m ent, rej ect i ng bo t h o f t heirargum ents

.

A . Juri s di ct i on and St andard of R evi ew T he D i s t r i ctC our thad s ubj ectm at t erj uri s di ct i on pur s uantt o 18 U

. S. C

. § 3 2 3 1

. A s t he Supr eme C our thas expl ai ned: [T]he guar ant ee a gai ns tdoubl e j eopa r dyas s ur es an i ndi vi dual t hat

. . . he w i l l notbe fo r c e d

. . . to e n d u re th e p e rso n a l stra in , p u b lic e mba r r a s s me n t , a n d e x p e n s e o f a c r i mi n a l t r i al m o re th a n o n c e f

o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e . . . . C o n s e q u e n tly, if

a c r i m in a l d e f

e n d a n t is to

. . . e n jo y th e f u ll p ro tec tio n o f th e C lau se , h is d o u b le j eopar dychal l enge t o t he i ndi ct m en t m us tbe r evi ew abl e bef

or e thats ubs equentexpos ure o c c u rs . A bney v. U ni t ed St at es , 431 U

. S. 651, 661- 62 (19 7 7 ). A ccor di ngl y , pretr i al or der s deny i ng m ot i ons t o di s m i s s an i ndi c tme nton doubl e j eopar dygr ounds ar e w i t hi n t he “c ol l at er al or der ” exc ept i on t o t he fi nal or derreq ui r ement

. See U ni t ed St at es v. E s pos i t o, 912 F. 2d 60, 61 ( 3d C i r . 1990)

. W e thus have a ppel l at e j ur i s di ct i on t o cons i dert hi s appea l u n d er 28 U .S .C . § 1 2 9 1

. O urr evi ew of doubl e j eopar dy chal l enges i s pl enary . See U n it ed S tat es v. C ianc ag li n i, 8 5 8 F

. 2 d 9 2 3 , 9 2 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ).

“ Si nc e c ol l a t e r a l e s t op pe l a s a ba rt o r e pr os e c ut i on i s a component of the D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e and i s an i s s ue of15 l aw , our r evi ew i s pl enary . ” U ni t ed St at es v. M er l i no, 310 F. 3d 137, 141 ( 3d C i r . 2002) .

B. D oubl e Je opa r dy T he doubl e j eopar dycl aus e o f the Fi fth A m endment p ro v id e s th a t n o p e rso n sh a ll “b e su b jec t f o r th e sa m e o f

f e n c e to b e tw ic e p u t in je o p a rd y o f lif e o r lim b .” U .S . C o n s t. a m e n d . V . “ P r o t e c t i o n s a g a i n s td o u b l e j e o p a r d ya r e a n c i e n t a n d we i nt erp rett he D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e i n l i ghtof i t s or i gi n and t he l i ne of i t s gr ow t h. ” U ni t ed St at es v. R i ver a, 384 F. 3d 49, 54 ( 3d C i r . 2004) ( ci t at i ons , quot at i on m arks , and footnot e omi t t ed) ( not i ng or i gi ns of doubl e j eopar dypr ot ect i ons i n G r eek a nd R o m an law ). A defe ndantbear s t he i ni t i al bur den of pr es ent i ng evi dence t o puthi s doubl e j eopar dy cl ai m ati s s ue. See U ni t ed St at es v. Fel t on, 753 F. 2d 276, 278 ( 3d C i r . 1985)

. “If t he d e f e n d a n tm a k e s a n o n - f

r i v o l o u s s h o w i n g o f

d o u b l e j e o p a r d y, he i s ent i t l ed t o a pr e- t r i al evi dent i aryhear i ng t o det erm i ne the m er i t s of hi s cl ai m . ” U n it ed St at es v. L i ot ar d, 817 F. 2d 1074, 1077 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ( ci ti n g U ni t ed St at es v. I nm on, 594 F. 2d 3 5 2 , 3 5 3 (3 d C ir. 1 9 7 9 )). “ O n c e th e d e f e n d a n t h a s m a d e o u t h is p r i ma f a c i e c a s e , t h e b u r d e n o f p e r s u a s i o n s h i f t s t o t he governm entt o pr ove by a pre ponder ance of t he evi dence t hatt he tw o in d ictm e n ts c h a rg e th e d e f e n d a n t w ith leg a llyse p a ra te crim es.” Id

. (cit ing F elt o n , 7 5 3 F

. 2 d at 27 8 ). I m por t ant l y , th e Dou b l e J eopar dyC l aus e pr ohi bi t s r epea t trials f o r th e sa m e o f

f e n s e , n o t f

o r th e sa m e c o n d u c t. A c c o rd in g ly , a d e f

e n d a n t m a yb e su b

jec t to m u lti p le p ro se c u ti o n s f

o r th e sa m e c o n d u c t if C o n g re ss in ten d e d to i m pos e mul t i pl e puni s hm ent s fort hat c o n d u ct

. A l bernaz v.16 U n ite d S ta te s , 4 5 0 U .S . 3 3 3 , 3 4 4 ( 1 9 8 1 ). I n o th e r w o rd s , a defe ndantgener al l y m ay be subj ect t o m ul t i pl e pr os ecut i ons as l ong as eac h pr os ecut i on i nvol ves a di ffe r entoffe ns e. I n B l ockbur gerv. U ni t ed St at es , t h e S u pr eme C our ts et fort h th e w el l -know n tes tfor determ i ning w hetherC on gress i nt ended t o s epar at el y puni s h t he same cour s e of c onduct

. 284 U. S

. 2 9 9 , 3 0 4 ( 1 9 3 2 )

. Bl o c k b u r g e r s t a t e s t h a t , “ wh e r e t h e s a me ac t or t ran sac ti o n co n sti tutes a v iolati o n o f tw o d ist inct statu tory p rov isi o n s, the t est to be a p p li ed to d eterm ine w h ethe r th ere are t w o off e n s e s o ro n l yo n e , i s whe t h e re a c h p r o v i s i o n r e q u i r es p roo f o f a fa ct w h ich the o ther d o es n o t. ” Id

. (em p h asis ad d ed ). In o th e r w o rd s, “ [ u ]n d e r th e B lo c k b u rg e r te st, a c o u rt lo o k s to the statu tory elem en ts of the c ri m e c h arg ed to d eterm ine if th ere i s anyover l ap. ” U ni t ed St at es v. C hor i n, 322 F. 3d 274, 281 ( 3d C ir . 2 0 0 3 ). T he B l ockbur ger t es ti s a t ool fordet erm i ni ng w hether C ongr es s i nt ended t o s epar at el ypuni s h vi olat ions of di s t i nct sta tu to ryp ro v isio n s, a n d th u s d o e s n o t ap p lyw h e re a sin g le s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n w a s v io la te d

. T h u s, th e S u p re m e C o u rt d id n o t f in d B lo c k b u rg e r re lev a n t in a c a se w h e re a “ sin g le a g re e m e n t is th e p ro h ib ited c o n sp ira c y , a n d h o w e v e r div e rse its obj ect s [thatagr eement ] vi ol at es but a si ngl e st atut e, § 37 of the C r i m i nal C ode, ” a pr edec es s ort o t he curr entgener al cons pi r acy statu te. B rav erm an v . U n it ed S tat es, 31 7 U

. S

. 4 9 , 5 4 (19 4 2 ). See al s o Sanabr i a v. U ni t ed S t at es , 437 U

. S. 54, 70 n. 24 ( 1978) ( hol d ing thatB l ockbur gert es tdi d notappl yt o vi ol at i on of a sing le st atute); U n it ed S tat es v . E v an s, 8 5 4 F

. 2 d 5 6 , 5 8 (5th C ir

. 1 9 8 8 ) (“ [ T ]h e B lo c k b u rg e r te st is n o t ap p lied to f in d se p a ra te o f f e n se s w h e re th e a c t o r tra n sa c tio n v io late s b u t a s in g le s t a tu t o r yp r o v i s i o n . ” ) I n c o n t r a s t , i n Al b e r n a z t h e S u p r e me17 C o u rtconcl uded thatt he B l ockbur gert es tdi d appl yw her e the defe ndant ’ s conductvi ol at ed mul t i pl e cons pi r acys t atut es . 450 U

. S. at339- 40 ( di s t i ngui s hi ng B r averm an on the bas i s t hat“the con s p i r a t o r i a l a g r e e me n t i n Br a v e r ma n , a l t h o u g h i t h a d m any obj ect i ves , vi ol at ed buta s i ngl e s t atut e”)

. See al s o U ni t ed St at es v. X avi er, 2 F. 3d 1281, 1290- 91 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( appl y i ng B lo c k b u rg e r te st w h e re sin g le s tatu te w a s c lea r ly d iv id e d in to s e p a ra te p ro v is io n s w ith d if f e re n t p e n a lty p ro v is io n s ). B ot h t he N ew Y o rk and Penns y l vani a ac t i ons al l ege vi ol a t i o n s o f

1 8 U. S. C. § 3 7 1

. Howev e r , t h e r e a r e t wo p r o ngs t o § 371. T he G overnm entm aintains t hatt hes e tw o pr ongs cr eat e s epar at e off

ens es . O n t he otherhan d , t he R i gas es m ai nt ai n t hat§ 3 7 1 cr eat es a s i ngl e off ens e thatcan be co m m itted i n tw o w ay s. B ec au se th e p arti es d ispu te w h ethe r § 371 cont ai ns one or m or e s t atut or y pr ovi s i ons , w e mustr es ol ve t hi s t h r es hol d ques t i on t o det erm i ne w hetherB l ockbur ger app l i es. 1. Sect i on 371 T itl e 1 8 , U n ited S tate s C o d e S e c tio n 3 7 1 p ro v id e s, in p erti n en t part : If tw o o r m o re p e rso n s c o n sp ire e ith e r to c o m m it a n yo f f e n se a g a in st th e U n ite d S tate s, o r to defr aud the U ni t ed S ta t es , oranyagenc yt her eof i n anym annerorfor a nypurpos e, and one or m or e of s uch p ers ons do anyactt o eff ectt he obj ectof the cons pi r acy , eac h s hal l be fi ned under t his t i t l e or i m pri soned no tm ore t han f i ve y ears , o r b o th . (E m p h a s is a d d e d .)18 In the N e w Y o rk I nd i ct m ent, t he G ov ernm ent al l eges a c o n s p ir a c yto “ c o m m it a n o f f e n s e a g a in s t th e U n ite d S ta te s .” O n the ot her ha nd , t he P enn sy l van i a Indi ct m ent al l eges a cons pi r acy“t o defr aud the U ni t ed St at es . ” In U n ite d S ta tes v

. A lst o n , 7 7 F

. 3 d 7 1 3 , 7 1 8 (3d C ir

. 1996) , w e not ed that“[§] 371 r efe rs to tw o t ypes of cons pi r aci es . ” W e have al s o pr evi ous l y des cr i bed an a gr eement t o d efraud the U nit ed S t at es and to com m i ta subst anti ve o ffen se as “a s i ngl e cons pi r acyw i t h t w o obj ect s . ” U ni t ed S ta t es v. Schr amm , 75 F. 3d 156, 158 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( di s cus s i ng char ge of c o n sp ira c yto d e f

ra u d th e U n ited S tate s a n d to c o m m it m a il fr aud)

. H ow ever , w e have not y etexpl i ci t l yaddr es s ed w hether t hes e types of cons pi r acy ar e par t s of a s i ngl e s t atut or yoffe ns e. I n U ni t ed St at es v. E d m o n ds , w e s etfor t h t he c o n sid e ra tio n s th a t g u id e o u r e v a lu a tio n o f w h e th e r a sin g le s t atut e cr eat es num er ous offe ns es , ors epa rat e means of comm i t t i ng a s i ngl e off ens e. 80 F. 3d 810, 8 1 2 (3d C i r . 1996) (e n b a n c ) (h o ld in g th a t th e in d iv id u a l p re d ica te il le g a l ac ts es t abl i s hi ng a cont i nui ng cr i m i nal ent erpr i s e ar e e l e me n t s of that o ff en se). W e m u st c o n side r (1 ) th e text an d legislat ive h ist o ry of the statute; ( 2) t he hi s t or i cal t r adi t i on t hata j ur yver di ct r epr es ent s s ubs t ant i al agr eement on a di s cr et e set of act i ons ; ( 3) cons t i tut i onal cons i der at i ons ; and ( 4) t he rul e of l eni t y . I d. at 818- 22; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. N avarr o, 145 F. 3d 580, 589- 90 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( appl y i ng t he Edm onds fr amew or k t o concl ude t hat the fe deral m on eyl aun deri ng st atute cr eat es a si ng l e off ense that ca n b e c o m m itted in three alt ern ate w ay s).

a. T ext and L egi s l at i ve H i s t ory W e begi n w i t h t he text of the s t atut e. Sect i on 37119 cont ai ns t hr ee ke ypr ovi sion s . Fi r s t , “tw o orm or e per s ons cons pi r e. ” Second, t he obj ect of the cons pi r acym us tbe “e i t her t o comm i tanyoffe ns e aga i ns tthe U ni t ed St at es , ort o defr aud t he U ni t ed St at es , o r a n y agenc yt her eof i n anym annerorfor anypurpos e. ” Thi r d, “one o r m or e of s uch per s ons do anyact t o eff ectt he obj ectof the cons pi r acy . ” A l t hough t he s econd pr ovi s i on cont ains a numberof al t ernat i ves , t hi s does not s ugges t t hat § 371 cr eat es m or e than o n e o f f e n s e . “ ‘ A s t a tu t e o f

t e n ma k e s p u n i s h a b l e t h e doi ng of one thi ng oranother , . . . s om et i m es t hus s peci fy i ng a co n side rab le nu m b er o f th ing s. T h en , b yp rop er a n d o rdin ary cons t ruct i on, a per s on w ho i n one tr ans act i on does al l , vi ol at es the s tatu te b u t on ce , an d incu rs on lyo n e p en alty . ’” G r i ffi n v. U n ited S tate s, 5 0 2 U .S . 4 6 , 5 1 (1 9 9 1 ) (e lli p sis in o rig in a l) ( quot i ng 1 J

. B i s hop, N ew C r i m i nal Pr ocedur e § 436, at355- 56 ( 2d ed. 1913) ) ; s ee a l s o Schad v. A r i zona, 501 U

. S. 624, 635- 36 ( 1991) ( “[L] egi s l atur es fr equent l yenumer at e al t ernat i ve means o f c o m m itt in g a c rim e w ith o u t in ten d in g to d e f in e s e p a ra te el ement s ors epar at e cr i m es . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Y eam an , 194 F. 3d 442, 453 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( hol di ng t hats t atut e cr i m i nal i zi ng “devi ce, s cheme orar t i fi ce t o defr aud, an obt ai ni ng of m oneyor pr oper t yby m at er i al m i s r epr es ent at i on, ora tr ans act i on t hat o p e ra tes a s a f

ra u d o r d e c e it o n a p u rc h a se r” c re a tes sin g le offe ns e ( i nt ernal quot ati o n m arks om i t t ed) ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. N avarr o, 145 F. 3d 580, 589- 90 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( hol di ng t hat fede r al m oneyl aunder i ng s t atut e cr eat es a s i ngl e off ens e w hi ch c a n b e c o mmi t t e d i n t h r e e a l t e r n a t e wa y s ) ; F e d

. R. Cr i m. P. 7( c) ( 1) ( author i zi ng a si ngl e countt o al l ege thatan off ens e w as comm it ted “byone orm or e s peci fi ed means ”) ; M i l anovi ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 365 U

. S. 551, 553- 54 ( 1961) ( hol di ng t hat20 defe ndantcannot be sepa r at el y convi ct ed under bot h pr ongs of 18 U

. S. C

. § 641, w hi ch pr ohi bi t s embezzl i ng or s t eali n g from th e U n ite d S ta te s o r r e c e iv in g s u c h s to le n p ro p e rt y ). I n U n ite d S tate s v . Je rryS m ith , the N in th C irc u it anal y zed the t extof § 371 and made the fol l ow i ng obs ervat i ons abouti t s s t ructur e: Her e t h e d e f

e n d a n t s wer e c h a r g e d w i t h a c on s p i r a c yu n d e rs e p a r a t e c l a u s e s o f th e s a me s t atut e, nott w o s ep arat e s t atut es . I tw oul d be strange t o i nfer t hat C on gress i ntended t o p un i sh t w i ce a co nspir acyt hat vi olat es both cl auses. W h e re a sin g le c rim in a l sta tu te p r o h ib its al t ernat i ve a ct s , cour t s s houl d noti nfert he leg isla tu re ’s in ten t t o im po se m u lti p le p u n is h m e n t. 8 9 1 F

. 2 d 7 0 3 , 7 1 2 (9th C ir

. 1 9 8 9 ) (cit ati o n o m itted). W e a g re e t hat unde r a natural readi ng , § 3 71 creat es a sin g le o f f e n se . T h e re lev a n t p o rtio n o f § 3 7 1 is n o t ju st a sin g le st atute, bu ta si ng l e sent ence, divi ded on l ybycom m as. T he u se o f th e w o rd “ e ith e r” b e f o re “ to c o m m it an yo f

f e n se ” a n d “ to defr aud” s ugges t s t hatt hes e obj ect s ar e meantt o pr ovi de al t ernat i ves r athert ha n t o c r e a t e s e p a r at e off ens es . Fur t her m or e, t hes e al t ernat i ves come i n t he mi ddl e of the s ent ence , and are f o llo w e d b yth e d e s c ri p tio n o f a n a d d itio n a l e le m e n t. A lth o u g h it i s lim ited , th e leg isla tiv e h isto ry o f § 3 7 1 is cons i s t entw i t h t hi s i nt erpr et at i on. T he or i gi nal fe der al c o n sp ira c ysta tu te w a s e n a c ted in 1 8 6 7 a s p a rt o f “ A n A c t to amend exi s t i ng L aw s r el at i ng t o I nt ernal R evenue , and forot herT h e ori gi nal t extof the s t atut e w as s ubs t ant i al l yt he 8 s ame as the m odern ver s i on. See U ni t ed St at es v. H i r s ch, 100 U

. S

. 3 3 , 3 5 (18 7 9 ). B ot h M ant on and B l ockbur ger w er e author ed byJ us t i ce 9 S u t h e r l a n d

. W e n o t e t h a tM a n t o n , wh i c h wa s wr i t t e n s ome y ear s l at er , di d not appl y t he B l ockbur ger t es t t o r es ol ve w hether t he co nspir acyst atute cr eat ed o ne o r m ore offen ses. 21 P u rp o se s.” S e e 1 4 S tat. 4 7 1 , 4 8 4 (1 8 6 7 ). B e c a u se o f its 8 i ncorpor at i on i n an ac tconce r ni ng r evenue , s om e bel i eved that bo t h p r o n g s o f

t h e c o n s p i r a c ys t a tu t e wer e “ d i r e c t e d o n l yat co n sp ir ac yto d ef

rau d the U n it ed S ta te s o f it s rev en u e.” Je rry S m ith , 8 9 1 F

. 2 d at 71 2

. H o w ev er, th e S u p rem e C o u rt co n clud ed that the c o n sp ir ac ystatu te m ad e c ri m inal “e v eryfo rm of cons pi r acyagai ns tthe U ni t ed St at es , and eve r yfor m of c on s pi r a c y t o de fr a ud t he m. ” U ni t e d St a t e s v. H i r s c h, 10 0 U. S. 3 3 , 3 5 -3 6 (1 8 7 9 ) (n o tin g th a t it w a s n o t u n u su a l f o r C o n g re ss to c o m b in e “ in c o n g ru o u s le g is la tio n ” in th e s a m e b ill)

. F u rth er, atthe tim e C o n g ress e n ac ted § 3 7 1 in it s m o d ern for m i n 1948, i tw as aw ar e thatt he court s i nt erpr et ed s i m i l ar lan g u a g e in a p re d e c e ss o r c o n sp ira c ysta tu te to c re a te a sin g le offe ns e. See U ni t ed St at es v. M an ton , 107 F. 2d 834, 838 ( 2d C i r . 1939) ( Sut her l and, J

. ) ( hol di ng t hat t he sepa r at e pr ongs of p red ec esso r co n sp ir ac ystatu te crea ted a sing le of fe n se). 9 b. Jur y C onf

us i on a nd C ons t i t ut i ona l C ons i de r at i ons I n E dm onds , w e expr es s ed conc ern t hat offe ns es w i t h a w i de r ange of

al t ernat e means ar e i ncons i s t entwi th th e hi s t or i cal t r adi t i on t hat a j ur y ver di ctr epr es ent s s ubs t ant i al agr eementon22 a di s cr et e s etof fa ct s . 80 F. 3d at 818- 19. H ow ever , cons pi r acy is a w e ll- e s ta b lis h e d e x c e p tio n to th is h is to ri c a l tr a d itio n . A s i ngl e cons pi r acy , li k e the cons pi r acychar ged i n t he N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent , can i ncl ude a w i de r ange o f cr i m i nal obj ect i ves . See B r averm an, 317 U

. S. at 53 ( “W hethert he obj ect o f a sin g le a g re e m e n t is t o c o m m it o n e o r m a n yc rim e s, it is in ei t hercas e thatagr eementw hi ch co ns t i tut es t he cons pi r acy w hi ch the s t atut e puni s hes

. ”)

. O ne cons pi rator i al agr eement “ca nnot be t aken t o be s ever al agr eement s and hence sev eral cons pi rac ie s beca us e i tenvi s ages t he vi ol at i on of s ever al s t atut es r athert han one. ” I d. A s t he N i nt h C i r cui texpl ai ned i n J err ySm i t h: T h e c lau se “ d e f

ra u d th e U n ited S ta tes ” m e re ly expands t he s cope of

t he o ffens e byi ncl udi ng anotherobj ectof a c ons pi r acyt hatm i ghtnot ot herw i s e be c over ed byt he cl aus e “a ny o f f e n se .”. . . In o th e r w o rd s, w h e re c o n sp ira c yis t he cha r ge, t he es t abl i s hed rul e i s t hat a char ge of cons pi r acyt o comm i t m or e t han one offe ns e may be i ncl uded i n a s i ngl e countw i t houtvi ol at i ng t he g e n e ra l ru le a g a in s t d u p lic ity. 891 F. 2d at712- 13. T r eat i ng fr aud on the U ni t ed St at es as any ot herobj ectof a cons pi r acydoes l i t t l e t o enl ar ge t he br oad s w eep of obj ect i ves c o n s t i tu t i n g “ o f

f e n s e s a g a i n s t t h e U n i t e d S t a t e s . ” A c c o r d i n g l y, t hi s i nt erpr et at i on of the s t atut e does noto ff end hi s t or i cal t radi t i on s abou tt he juryverdi ctor due p rocess .W h il e w e f in d th a t th e sta tu te c lea rlyc re a tes a sin g le 10 o f f e n se , w e n o te th a t th e G o v e rn m e n t s h o u ld b e w ill in g to conce de thatt he s t atut e i s atl eas tambi guou s; U n it ed St at es A t t or ney s ’ O ffi ces i n t he Thi r d C i r cui t , i ncl udi ng t he U ni t ed St at es A t t or n e y ’ s Off

i ce f ort he M i ddl e D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a, h a v e c h a rg e d b o th p ro n g s o f § 3 7 1 a s a s in g le o f

f e n s e . S e e , e .g ., U ni t ed St at es v. D onah u e, 8 8 5 F. 2d 45, 46 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( M i ddl e D i s t r i ct of Penns y l vani a char ged cons pi r acy t o defr aud and t o avoi d fi l i ng curr ency t r ans act i on r epor t s ) ; U ni t ed St at es v. K emm el , 160 F. Supp. 718, 720 ( M

. D

. Pa. 1958) ( hol di ng t hat i ndi ctm entchar gi ng s i ngl e count o f conspi r acyt o defr aud the U ni t ed S t at es and t o comm i t an offens e agai ns t t he U ni t ed St at es w as not dupl i ci t ous beca us e “[t ] he cons pi r acyi s t he cr i m e, and t hat i s one, how everdi ver s e i t s obj ect s ” ( ci t at i on and quot at i on ma r k s o mi t t e d ) ) ; s e e a l s o Un i t e d S t a t e s v . Au f f e n b e r g , 53 9 F. S u p p . 2 d 7 8 1 , 7 8 3 (D

. V

. I. 2 0 0 8 ) (co n sp ir ac yto co m m itw ir e fra u d a n d to d ef

rau d the U n it ed S tat es c h arg ed in o n e c o u n t) ; U ni t ed St at es v. A l s t on, 77 F

. 3 d 7 1 3, 714 ( 3d C i r . 1996) 23 c. R u le of L en it y “[W ] e r es ol ve an a m bi gui t yi n favorof l eni t yw hen r equi r ed t o det er m i ne the i n tent of C ongr es s i n puni s hi ng m ul t i pl e as pect s of t h e same cr i m i nal act

. ” H efl i n v. U ni t ed S t at es, 35 8 U

. S

. 41 5, 41 9 (195 9); see al so B el l v. U nit ed S t at es, 3 4 9 U

. S

. 8 1 , 8 3 (19 5 5 ) (“W h en C o n g ress lea v es to the J u d ici ary t he t as k of i m put i ng t o C ongress a n undecl ar ed w i l l , t he ambi gui t ys houl d be r es ol ved i n favorof l eni t y . ”)

. H ere, t he rul e of l eni t ys ugges t s t hati f ther e w er e anyambi gui t yi n the sta tute i t shou l d be res olved i n favor of conc l ud i ng t hat it e sta b lish e s a sin g le o f f e n se . S e e 1 A C h a rle s A . W rig h t, 10( E as t ern D i s t r i ctof Penns y l vani a char ged cons pi r acy t o defr aud a n d t o c o mmi t f

i n a n c i a l s t ru c tu r i n g ) ; Un i t e d S t a t e s v . S c h r a mm, 75 F. 3d 156, 158 ( 3d C i r . 1996) ( W es t ern D i s t r i ctof P e n n sy lv a n ia c h a rg e d c o n sp ira c y to d e f ra u d a n d to c o m m it m a il fr aud) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W exl er , 31 F. 3d 117, 118 ( 3d C i r . 1994) (D istric t o f

N e w Je rse yc h a rg e d c o n sp ira c yto d e f ra u d a n d to pr epar e fa l s e t ax r et u rns i n vi ol at i on of fe der al l aw ) ; U ni t ed S tat es v . S h o u p , 6 0 8 F

. 2 d 9 5 0 , 9 5 3 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 9 ) (E astern D istric t o f

P e n n sy lv a n ia c h a rg e d c o n sp ira c yto d e f ra u d a n d to o b s tru c t ju s tic e in a s in g le c o u n t)

. 24 F e d e ra l P ra c tice a n d P ro c e d u re § 1 4 2 a t 1 4

- 1 5 (4 th ed. 2008) ( “B eca use a det er m i nat i on t hats epar at e off ens es ar e i nvol ved m a k e s p o ss ib le m u lti p le p u n ish m e n t f o r th e sa m e c o n d u c t, unl es s C ongr es s has i ndi cat ed cl ear l yt hati tcont empl at es s epar at e cr i m es, doubt s s houl d be r es ol ved aga i ns tturni ng a sing le t ran sac ti o n ag ains t m u lt iple crim es.”). M uch of the conduc tt hat s at i s fi es t he “de fr aud” pr ong of t he st atute al so con st i tutes an off ense againstt he U nit ed S t at es. F or exam ple, ob struct i on of j ust i ce, bri bery of p ub l i c off i ci al s, tax e v a sio n , a n d tax f

ra u d h a v e a ll b e e n p ro se c u ted u n d e r b o th pr ongs . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. B or nm an, 559 F. 3d 150, 151 ( 3d C i r . 2009) ( cons pi r acyt o com m i tbr i berychar ged under offe ns e pr ong) ; U ni t ed St at es v. M ant on, 107 F. 2d 834, 839 ( 2d C i r . 1939) ( br i bery char ged underdefr aud pr ong) ; U ni t ed St at es v. W exl er , 31 F. 3d 117, 118 (3d C i r . 1994) ( t ax fr aud cha r ged as cons pi r acyt o defr aud and t o comm i toffe ns e) ; U ni t ed St at es v. Sun M yung M oon, 718 F. 2d 1210, 1216 ( 2d C i r . 1983) (conspi racyt o fil e false in c o m e t ax returns, t o m ake f al se s t at eme n t s t o g o v e r n me n ta g e n c i e s , a n d t o o b s t ru c tj u s t i ceT he G overn m ent ur ges us t o di s r egar d cas es hol di ng 11 t h a t§ 3 7 1 c r e a t e s a s i n g l e s t a tu t e f o r t h e p u rp o s e s o f

d u p l i c i t y. W e re je c t th is a rg u m e n t.

“ D u p licityis th e im p ro p e r jo in in g o f d isti nct an d se p a ra te offe ns es i n a s i ngl e count

. D upl i ci t ous count s m ayconce al t he s peci fi c cha r ges , pr eventt he j u ry fr om deci di ng gui l tor i nnocenc e w i th r es pect t o a par t i cul ar offe ns e, expl oi tt he r i s k of p re ju d ic ia l e v id e n tia ry r u lin g s , o r e n d a n g e r f a irs e n te n c in g .” U ni t ed St at es v. H addy , 134 F. 3d 542, 548 ( 3d C i r . 1998) ( i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. T h e i s s ue i n bot h dupl i ci t yand 25 char ged under offe ns e pr ong) ; U ni t ed St at es v. R anki n, 870 F. 2d 109, 113 ( 3d C i r . 1989) ( cons pi r acyt o obs t ructj us t i ce c har ged un der defraud prong ). If § 37 1 creat ed tw o separat e off enses, t hen cons pi r acyt o comm i tanyo f thes e offens es coul d be p r o s e c u t e d t wi c e i n t h e s a m e i n d i c t m e n t , b a s e d o n t h e s a me pr oof, and coul d r es ul t i n m ul t i pl e cons ecut i ve s ent ence s . T he over l appi ng natur e of the tw o pr ongs bot h s ugges t s t hat C ongr es s i nt ended t o cr eat e onl y one off ens e, and hi ghl i ght s t he appr opr i at enes s of appl y i ng t he rul e of l eni t y . C f. U ni t ed St at es v. Y eaman, 194 F

. 3 d 4 42, 453 ( 3d C i r . 1999) ( focus i ng on over l appi ng natur e of al t ernat i ves i n fr aud s t atut e i n hol di ng t hat itcre ated sing le of

fe n se). F o r these reas on s, w e j oin the m aj ori t yof the C i rcuit C our t s of A ppeal s t o cons i der t he i s s ue and c oncl ude that§ 371 cr eat es a s i ngl e offe ns e. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. M ant on, 107 F. 2d at839 ( Sut her l and, J

. ) ( hol d i ng t hati ndi ct m entw as not “bad f o rd u p l i c i t yb e c a u s e i ta l l e g e s t h a tt h e c o n s p i r acy cont empl at ed the vi ol at i on of a c r i m i nal s t atu t e and a l s o t he defraud i ng of the U nit ed S t at es”) ; U nit ed Stat es v. W i l l i am s, 11doubl e j eopar dyi s w hetherC ongr es s i nt end ed t o cr eat e one offe ns e or t w o. See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. C onl ey, 37 F. 3d 970, 98 0 (3d C i r. 19 94 ) ( “In con du ct i ng a do ub l e j eop ardyanaly si s, th e g o a l is to a sc e rta in leg isla tiv e in ten t a n d to a p p lyth e sta tu te a t is s u e , a s w ri tte n , in k e e p in g w ith th a t in te n t” ); 1 A W ri g h t, § 142, at 1 7

- 2 0 ( n o t i n g t h a t “ t h e r e a l q u e s t i o n [ i n a n a l y z i n g an i ndi ctm entfordupl i ci t y ] is o ne of l egi s l at i ve i nt ent , t o be asc ert ai ned fr om al l t he dat a ava i l abl e”) ; cf. M i l anovi ch v. U ni t ed St at es , 365 U

. S. 551, 553- 54 ( 1961) ( not i ng t hati s s ue of w hethers t atut e w as des i gned t o cr eat e t w o puni s hm ent s fort he sam e c ri m inal ac t i s o n e o f statuto ryinterpre tat ion ). F u rth er,

“ o n e v ice o f

d u p licityis th a t a g e n e r a l v e rd ict . . . c o u ld p re ju d ice th e d e f

e n d a n t in p ro tec tin g h im s e lf a g a in st d o u b le jeop ard y . ” U n it ed S tat es v. S p ark s, 5 1 5 F

. 2 d 1 1 2 , 1 1 6 (3d C ir

. 1 9 7 5 ). 26 705 F. 2d 603, 623- 24 ( 2d C i r . 1983) ( i n d i ct m ental l egi ng o ff en se a n d d ef

rau d co n sp ir ac yin sa m e c o u n t n o t du p li cit o u s); U ni t ed S t a t e s v . W i l e y , 9 7 9 F. 2 d 3 6 5 , 3 6 7

- 6 8 ( 5 t h Ci r . 1 9 9 2) (sam e); U n it ed S tat es v . P ierce, 47 9 F

. 3 d 5 4 6 , 5 5 2 (8th C ir

. 2007) ( “ Ea c h o f the thr ee s et s of obj ectoffe ns es

— fr audul entt ax r etur ns , m ai l f

raud and w i r e fr aud— fur t hert he gene r al agr eement and ar e m ul t i pl e fac et s of one c ons pi r acy . ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. D avi d Sm i t h, 424 F. 3d 992, 1000 ( 9t h C i r . 2005) (anal y zi ng charges un der differ ent prong s as si n g le o ffen se “[b]ec au se al l t hr ee c ons pi r acycount s i n t hi s cas e vi ol at e the s ame st atut e”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. J err ySm i t h, 891 F. 2d 703, 712- 13 ( 9t h C i r . 1989) ( hol di ng t hats i ngl e i ndi ctm ent count ch arg ing b o th p rov isi o n s o f § 3 7 1 w as n o t du p li cit o u s), am en d ed as to fo rm o f o p inion o n ly , 9 0 6 F

. 2 d 3 8 5 (9 th C ir

.T hus , t he Second, N i nth, E l even t h, and D

. C

. C i rcu its 12 have hel d t hat § 371 cr eat es one offe ns e. T he Fi fth, E i ght h and T e n th C irc u its h a v e c o n f lictin g p re c e d e n t. 27 1 9 9 0 ); U n it ed S tat es v . H a u c k , 9 8 0 F

. 2 d 6 1 1 , 6 1 5 (10 th C ir

. 1992) ( hol di ng t hats i ngl e cons pi r acyco u ntt o defr aud governm entagenc yand t o comm i to ther s ubs t ant i ve off ens es w a s n o t d u p licito u s b e c a u se “ it i s p e rm iss ib le to c h a rg e a sin g le o ff en se b u t spe cifyalt ern ati v e m ea n s to co m m itthe o ff en se” ); U ni t ed St at es v. H ar m as , 974 F. 2d 1262, 1266 ( 11t h C i r . 1992) ( “The st atut e i s w r i t ten i n t he di s j unct i ve and s houl d be i nt erpr et ed as es t abl i s hi ng t w o al t ernat i ve means of comm i t t i ng a v i o l a t i o n . ” ) ; M a yv . Un i t e d S t a t e s , 1 7 5 F

. 2 d 9 9 4 , 1 0 0 3 ( D. C. C i r . 1 9 4 9 ) ( r e

j e c t i n g a r g u me n t t h a t “ a c o n s p i r a c y t o v i o l a t e a c r i mi n a l s t a tu t e a n d t o d e f r a u d t h e Un i t e d S t a t e s wa s t wo offe ns es ”)

. B uts ee U ni t ed St at es v. H aga, 821 F. 2d 1036, 1043 ( 5t h C i r . 1987) ( “C ountI m us thave c har ged a cons pi r acyei t her to ‘c o m m it an yo f

f e n se ’ o r to ‘d e f

ra u d th e U n ited S tate s’; it cannothave char ged bot h. ”) ; U ni t ed St at es v. E r vas t i , 201 F. 3d 1 0 2 9 , 1 0 3 9 (8 th C ir. 2 0 0 0 ) (“T h o u g h it i s n o t d iv id e d f o rm a lly into su b sec ti o n s, § 3 7 1 p lai n lyestab li sh es tw o o ff e n s es.”); U n it ed S tat es v . T h o m p so n , 8 1 4 F

. 2 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 7 5 -77 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 8 7 ) (h o ld in g th a t d e f e n d a n t h a d n o t p re se n ted a d is c e rn a b le doubl e j eopar dy cl ai m not w i t hs t andi ng t hatfi r s tpr os ecut i on char ged cons pi r acyt o comm i t m ai l fr aud under“off ens e” pr ong of § 371 and s econd char ged cons pi r acyt o i m pede l aw ful fu n cti o n o f U n it ed S tat es u n d er “ d ef rau d ” p ron g o f § 3 7 1 ). 12 2. T ot al i t y of

t he C i rcum s t ances H av ing d eterm ined that § 3 7 1 cre ates a s in g le s tatu tory28 offe ns e, w e mustdet erm i ne w hethert he R i gas es ’ conduct v io late d th a t sta tu te m u lti p le tim e s o r o n lyo n c e . T h e D o u b le J eopar dyC l aus e pr ohi bi t s t he G overnm entfr om “s pl i t t i ng one co n sp ir ac y into sev era l p rose cu ti o n s. ” U n it ed S tat es v . B ec k er, 8 9 2 F .2 d 2 6 5 , 2 6 8 (3 d C ir. 1 9 8 9 ). H o w e v e r, itc a n b e d if f icu lt t o di s t i ngu ish w hethera cour s e of c onductcons t i tut es one cons pi r acyort w o us i ng t he general l yappl i cabl e B l ockbur ger tes t. In p a rticu lar , a s in g le c o n sp ira c ym a y b e d iv id e d in to m ul t i pl e pr os ecut i ons , eac h al l egi ng di ffe r entover tact s . I n s uch a case, “[t ]he dan ger i s t hat successi ve i nd i ct m ents against a s i n g le def

endantforpar t i ci pat i on i n a s i ngl e cons pi r acym i ght w ith sta n d sa m e e v id e n c e sc ru tin y[ u n d e r th e B lo c k b u rg e r te st] if th e c o u rt p lac e s u n d u e e m p h a sis u p o n th e e v id e n c e u se d to pr ove the comm i s s i on of the overtact s al l eged. ” U ni t ed St at es v. L i ot ar d, 817 F. 2d 1074, 1078 ( 3d C i r . 1987) ; cf. K rul ew i t ch v. U nit ed S t at es, 33 6 U .S . 4 40 , 44 7 (194 9) ( Jackson , J. concurr i ng) ( not i ng t hat“cha m el eon- l i ke, [cons pi r acy ] t akes on a s peci al col or at i on fr om eac h of t he m anyi ndepende ntoffe ns es o n w h ich it m ayb e o v erlaid” ). T o r es ol ve thi s pr obl em, t he cour t s of appe al s , i ncl udi ng t he Thi r d C i r cui t , have de vel op ed a “t ot al i t yof the ci r cums t a n c e s ” t e s tt o d i s t i n gui s h cons pi r acypr os ecut i ons bas ed on t he s ame cons pi r acys t atu t e. See, e. g. , B ecke r , 892 F. 2d at 268. T hi s t es t di r ect s a di s t r i ct court t o l ook att he t ot al i t yof the c ir c u m s ta n c e s in v o lv e d in e a c h o f f e n s e . T he u l t i m at e go al of the t otal i t y of t he cir cum st ances t est is to d e te rm in e “ w h e th e r th e re a re tw o a g re e m e n ts o r o n ly o n e .” U n it ed S tat es v . J. D av id S m ith , 8 2 F

. 3 d 1 2 6 1 , 1 2 6 7 (3d C ir

. 1996); s ee a l s o B ecke r , 892 F. 2d at268 ( “The cr i t i cal det erm i nat i on i s w hether one agr eement exi s t ed. ”)

. I n as s es s i ng29 this i ssu e, th e T h ir d C ir cu itco n side rs w h ethe r: ( a) t he “l ocus cr i m i ni s ” of the t w o al l eged cons pi r aci es i s t he s ame; ( b) t her e i s a s i gni fi cant d e g r e e o f

t e mp o r a l o v e r l a p b e t we e n t h e t wo cons pi r aci es char ged ; ( c) t her e i s an over l ap of per s onnel b etw ee n the tw o co n sp ir aci es ( i ncl udi ng uni ndi ct ed as w el l as i ndi ct ed cocons pi r at or s ) ; and ( d) t he overtact s char ged and [( e) ] t he r ol e pl ay ed by the def endant ac co rdin g to the tw o ind ict m en ts are sim il ar. L i ot ar d, 817 F. 2d at 1078 ( emphasi s added a nd i nt ernal ci t at i ons om i t t ed)

. I n ot herw or ds , t he def endantm us ts how t hatpl ace , tim e , p e o p le, a c ti o n , an d re sp o n sib ili ties a re sim ilar in b o th pr os ecut i ons . H ow ever , t hi s l i s t i s notexhaus t i ve and “ di ffe r ent con spi raci es m ayw arr ant em ph asi zi ng differe nt fact ors. ” J. D avi d Sm i t h, 82 F. 3d at1267. O t herfac t or s t hatm aypr ove hel pful i n det erm ining w hetheran i ndi ctm entchar ges one or m or e cons pi r aci es ar e: “( 1) ‘ w hethert her e w as a comm on goal among t he cons pi r at or s ’ ; ( 2) ‘ w hetherthe agr eement cont empl at ed br i ngi ng to pa s s a cont i nuous r es ul tt hatw i l l not con t i n u e wi t h o u t t h e c o n t i n u o u s c o o p e r a t i on of t he c o n sp ira to rs’ ; an d (3 ) ‘th e e x ten t to w h ich th e p a rticip a n ts over l ap i n t he var i ous deal i ngs . ’ ” U ni t ed St at es v. K em p , 500 F

. 3 d 2 5 7 , 2 8 7 ( 3 d C i r . 2 0 0 7 ) ( q u o t i n g U n i t e d S t a t e s v . K e l l y, 8 9 2 F. 2 d 2 5 5 , 2 5 9 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 9 ) ( s e t t i n g f o r t h t es t for det e rmi ni ng w hethera s i ngl e cons pi r acycounts houl d have be en ch arg ed as m u lt iple co n sp ir ac ies)). F u rth er, i n ap p ly ing the test a d istri ct co u rtm u st “assu re that the s u b stan ce o f th e m att er c o n tr o ls an d n o t the g ran d jury ’s30 charact eri zat i on of it

. ” J. D avid S m i t h, 82 F

. 3d at12 67

. T hu s, a court m us t “l ook i nt o t he ful l s cope of act i vi t i es des cr i bed and i m pli ed in t he indi ct m ents

. ” Id. at 12 68 (hol ding t hat “w e m ust loo k to the en ti re rec o rd b ef o re the d istri ct co u rt ”). I n L i o t a r d , t h e d e f

e n d a n th a d b e e n a c q u i t t e d o f a § 3 71 cons pi r acyt o vi ol at e 18 U

. S. C

. § 2 3 1 4 b yt r ans por t i ng s t ol en goods i n i nt er s t at e comm er ce. 8 1 7 F

. 2 d at1076. H e w as s u b s e q u e n t l yc h a r g e d wi t h § 3 7 1 c o n s p i r a c y t o v i o l a t e 1 8 U. S

. C. § 659 by s t eal i ng fr om an i nt er s t at e s hi pm ent of goods

. I d. T he D istri ct C o u rt d ec li n ed to con d u ct a h ea ri n g o n the d ef en d an t’ s doub le jeo p ar dycl ai m . I d. ; s ee a l s o U ni t ed St at es v. L i ot ar d, 6 3 8 F . S u p p . 1 1 0 1 , 1 1 0 4 (D .N .J. 1 9 8 6 ). W e a p p lied th e to tality of the ci r cumst ance s t es t and concl uded t hat t he def endanthad m a d e o u t a n o n f

ri v o lo u s s h o w in g o f

d o u b le je o p a rd y: m er chandi s e w as s t ol en fr om t he s ame pl ace ; t he per i od of the cons pi r a c yc h a r g e d i n t he fi r s ti ndi ct m entw as ent i r el ys ubs um ed w i t hi n t he per i o d o f ti m e s etouti n t he s econd i ndi ctm ent ; t he pr i nci pal cocons pi r at orw as t he s ame i n bot h indi ct m ent s ; t he n ature o f t h e o v ert acts ch arg ed in the tw o ind ict m en ts w ere near l y i dent i cal ; and t he defenda nt pl ay ed t he same r ol e i n eac h char ged i ndi ctm ent

. L i ot ard, 817 F. 2d at1078- 79. W e found t hati tw as i m m at er i al t hatt he tw o i ndi ct m ent s al l eged di ffe r ent act s of theft

. I d. at1079. W e s i m i l ar l yfound thati tw as not s ig n if ica n t th a t th e tw o in d ictm e n ts a lleg e d c o n sp ira c yto comm i tdi ffe r entunder l y i ng offe ns es . I d. at1078 n. 7 ( hol di ng t hat“thes e di ffe r ence s i n s t atut or y vi ol at i on ar e i m m at er i al and for tui t ous ”)

. T hus , w e concl uded thatL i ot ar d w as ent i t l ed t o a p re tr ia l e v id e n tia ry h e a ri n g . Id . a t 1 0 7 9

. U ni t ed St at es v. K emp, l i ke the i ns t antcas e, i nvol ved a lleg a tio n s o f

w id e sp re a d b u t ab stra c t f in a n c ial m isc o n d u c t.31 5 0 0 F .3 d a t 2 6 4 . K e m p a n d h is co d e f e n d a n ts w e re c h a rg e d w ith a con spi racyt hat i nv olved a v ari et y of f raudulentt ransact i on s, in c lu d in g e x ten sio n o f o th e rw ise -u n a v a ilab le lo a n s to governm entoffi ci al s , di r ectbr i bes t o t hos e off i ci al s , and d ire c tio n o f g o v e rn m e n t c o n tra c ts t o c o m p a n ies w ith in d e f e n d a n ts’ c o n tro l. Id . K e m p is , th u s, b o th m o re f a c tu a lly sim ilar th a n L io tar d

— w h ich in v o lv e d a lleg e d c o n sp ira c ies to s t eal and tr ans por ts t ol en goods , see 8 1 7 F. 2d at1076— and m ore r ecent. A ccordi ng l y , w e beg i n w i t h the K em p fac t ors.

a. K em p T est i . “C om m on go al am on g the co n spirat ors” T he fi r s tK emp fact o r is w hethert her e w as a comm on goal among t he cons pi r at or s . K emp, 500 F. 3d at287. T he G overnm ent u rge s us t o focus on t he obj ect i ves of the cons pi r aci es char ged i n t he tw o indi ctm ent s , ar gui ng t hatt he obj ectof the N ew Y or k cons pi rac yw as t o comm i ts ecur i t i es f r a u d , wi r e f

r a u d , b a n k f

r a u d , t o f i l e f a l s e r e p o r t s wi t h t h e S EC, and t o fal s i fyt he books and reco rds of A del phi a, w hi l e the ob j e c t of t he Pe nn s y l va ni a c on s pi r a c y w a s t o de fr a ud t he IRS. H ow ever , t hi s ar gum ent m i s s es t he poi ntof the t ot al i t yof t he ci r cumst ance s t es t

. I n L i ot ar d, w e spec i fi cal l yr ej ect ed i ncl u di ng obj ect s of the cha r ged cons pi r aci es i n t hatt es t

. 817 F .2 d a t 1 0 7 8 n .7

. I t is w e ll es tab lish e d th a t a s in g le con s p i r a t o r i a l a g r e e me n tc a n e n v i s a g e t h e v i o l a t i o n o f s e ver al s t atut es . See, e. g. , B r averm an v. U ni t ed S t at es , 317 U

. S. 49, 53 ( 1942)

. Fur t her , t he G overnm ent ’ s appr oach w oul d gi ve undue w ei gh tt o the “grand jur y ’s charact eri zat i on ” of the R i gases’ c o n d u c t, in s te a d o f

f o c u s in g o n th e “ s u b s ta n c e o f th e m a tte r.” J

. D avi d Sm i t h, 82 F. 3d at 1267. T hus , i n cons i der i ng w hether32 t he def end an t s had a c om m on goal w e l ook t o t he under l y i ng purpos e of t he al l eged c r i m i nal act i vi t y . See, e. g. , U ni t ed St at es v. G r eeni dge, 495 F. 3d 85, 93 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( des cr i bi ng comm on goal as “t o m ake m oneybydepos i t i ng s t ol en and al t er ed corpor at e che cks i nt o bus i nes s acc ount s ”) ; K el l y , 892 F. 2d at259 ( des cr i bi ng comm on goal as “t o m ake moneys el l i ng ‘spe ed ’”). A s s et fo rth above, i n t he Penns y l vani a I ndi ctm entt he G overnm en t al l eges t hat , aft era part i cul ar l yhi gh t ax bi l l , t he R i gas es deci ded “thatt heyw oul d neverpay[a] l ar ge amountof t a x e s a g a i n . ” Pe n n s y l v a n i a I n d i c t me n t a t6 , ¶ ¶ 1

- 2

. To a c c o m p lish th is p u rp o se , the R ig a se s d e c id e d th a t “R ig a s f a m ily m ember s s h o u l d n o tt a k e l a r g e s a l a r i e s f r o m A d e l p h i a , b ut s houl d ‘ l ive o u t o f t he company

. ’ ” I d. T o avoi d det ect i on, t he R i gas es engage d i n s ham t r ans act i ons t o co n ceal t hei rus e of corpor at e as s et s . O f co u rse, t o conce al t hei ri ncome fr om t he G o v e rn m e n t, th e R ig a se s a lso h a d to c o n c e a l itf ro m th e p u b lic i n g en era l , i ncl udi ng s har ehol der s . T he N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent s i m p l yt a r g e t e d t h i s a s p e c to f t h e R i g a s e s ’ s c h e m e . Fu rt her, itis no t dispo sit ive th at the c o n sp ir ac ych arg ed in the N ew Y o rk I ndi ctm ent w as br oader t han t he P enns y l vani a Indi ctm ent

. T he char ges i n bot h ind ict m ent s r el at e t o a comm on goal of enr i chi ng t he R i gas es t hr ough A del phi a. A “mast ercons pi r acy [ca n i nvol ve] m or e than one s ubs i di arys cheme. ” U ni t ed St at es v. K enny , 462 F. 2d 1205, 1216 ( 3d C i r . 1972)

. T he al l egat i ons re late d to conv ers i on of A delphi a fun ds byt he R i gases— a su b sid iar y sc h e m e w ith in th e N e w Y o rk In d ictm e n t— a p p e a r to be the sam e i n b oth i nd i ct m ents

.T he P enns y l vani a S uper cedi ng I ndi ctm entexpands t he 13 per i od of the cons pi r acyt o inclu d e 1 989 t o 2008, butdoes not al l ege a nycont i nui ng cons pi r at or i al act i vi t yaft er2002. 33 i i . C ont i nuou s R es ul t R equi ri ng C ont i nuou s C ooperat i on T he sec ond K emp fact ori s w hether“the agr eement cont empl at ed br i ngi ng t o pas s a cont i nuous r es ul t thatw i l l not cont i nue w i t h o u tt h e c o n t i n u o u s c o o p e r a t i o n o f t he c o n sp ira to rs.” K e m p , 5 0 0 F .3 d a t 2 8 7

. T h e f irst p a rt o f

th is fa ctor o v erlap s w ith the tim e f ac tor fro m the L iotard t est. In e v a lu a tin g th e “ c o o p e ra tio n ” p a rt o f th is f a c to r “ w e lo o k to w h ethe r there w as ev iden ce that the ac ti v it ies o f on e gro u p w ere nece s s aryoradvant ageous t o t he s ucce s s of another a s pectof t he s cheme ort o t he over al l s ucce s s of the ventur e. ” U n it ed States v . G r eeni dge, 495 F. 3d 85, 93 ( 3d C i r . 2007) ( i nt ernal qu otat i on m arks, el l i psi s, and ci t at i on om i t t ed). In ot her w ords, w e c o n side r w h ethe r all asp ec ts of the s ch em e w ere i nt er depende nt

. C f. K emp, 500 F. 3d at289 ( “[I ] nt er depende nce ser ves as e v id e n ce of

an ag reem ent; t hat i s, i thelps es t abli sh wh e t h e rt h e a l l e g e d c o c o n s p i r a t o r s a r e a l l c o mmi t t e d t o t h e s a me s et o f o b j e c t i v e s i n a s i n g l e c o n s p i r a c y . ” ( i n t e r n a l c i t a t i o n and q u o tat ion m ark s o m itted)). A s t o t i m e, t he Penn sy lvani a I ndi ctm entcover s a w i der t i m e s pan than the N ew Y or k I ndi ct m ent , butag ain t he key y e a rs in b o th c o n sp ira c ies a r e th e sa m e . T h e P e n n sy lv a n ia I ndi ctm ental l eges t hatt he cons pi r acy last ed fr om “N ovember 1 9 8 9 , thr o u g h th e d a te o f th e in d ictm e n t [ 2 0 0 5 ],” b u t o n ly des cr i bes over tacts o ccurr i ng betw een 1998 a nd 2002. 13 P e n n sy lv a n ia In d ictm e n t a t 2

. T h e m a jo rityo f th e a lleg a tio n s inT he Penns y l vani a Super cedi ng I ndi ctm entexpands t he 14 all eg ed tax lo ss to inc lud e the 2 0 0 1 tax y ea r. 34 t he cons p ir acycountr el at e t o t he per i od betw een 1996 a nd 2002. T he al l eged t ax l os s i s fur t herl i m i t ed t o t he per i od of 1998 t o 2000. 14 T he N ew Y or k I ndi ct m ent char ged a cons pi r acybetw een 1999 and M ay2002. H ow ever , t he N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent su g g e sts th a t th e R ig a se s’ c o n sp ira to ria l co n d u c t b e g a n w e ll befor e 1999. T he B i l l of Par t i cul ar s fur t heral lege s thatt he R ig a se s b e g a n u sin g A d e lp h ia f u n d s f o r th e ir p e r s o n a l b e n e f

it “[f ] r om atl eas t

. . . 1993. ” B i l l of Par t i cul ar s ¶ 81. B eca us e the N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent does not purpor t t o r eac h t he or i gi n of the R i gas es ’ cons pi r acy , w e do notfi nd i t s i gni fi cant t hati t s char ges b e g a n late r th a n th o se in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia I n d ictm e n t. A s t o i nt er dependen ce , w e aga i n r ei t er at e thatt he G ov ernm entcl ai m s t hatt he R i gas es appr opr i at ed moneyfr om A del phi a t o avoi d t aki ng s al ar i es on w hi ch theyw oul d have ha d to p ayinco m e tax

. S ee P en n sy lvan ia Ind ict m en t at 6 , ¶ ¶ 1 -2 ( “J O H N J

. R I G A S and T I M O T H Y J

. R I G A S st at ed t o an A del phi a empl oy ee t hat t hey w oul d neverpayt hi s l ar ge amount of t axes agai n. ”; T i m ot hyR i gas t ol d “A del phi a empl oy ees t hat t he R i gas fami l ym embers sh oul d nott ake l ar ge s al ar i es fr om A del phi a, but s houl d ‘ l i ve out of t he company

. ’ ”) Fur t her , t he R ig a se s h a d to h id e th e ir m isu se o f A d e lp h ia’ s c o rp o ra te a ss e ts fr om t he publ i c i n or dert o avoi d det ect i on of thei r incom e by th e G o v e rn m e n t.M u lcah eyw as re sp o n sible f o r m an ag ing A d elph ia’s 15 t r eas ur y , i ncl udi ng “the s uper vi s i on of m oneyfl ow i ng i nt o and outof A del phi a. ” N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent¶ 5

. B row n w as r es pons i bl e forr ai s i ng capi t al forA del phia t hr ough s ecur i t i es t r ans act i ons and bank l oans . W er t h w as t he D i r ect orof Ext ernal R epor t i ng for A del phi a. H e w as r es pons i bl e fors uper vi s i ng t he preparat i on of A delphi a’s fi nan ci al st at em ents

. T he N ew Y or k B i l l of Par t i cul ar s named an addit ion al s ev en t een uni ndi ct ed co- cons pi r at or s , and des cr i bed thr ee addi t i onal po s s i b l e c o - c o n s p i r at or s under on- goi ng i nves t i gat i on. 35

ii i. O v er lap p ing P a rticipa n ts B ot h t he L i ot ar d and K emp t es t s di r ect us to consi der over l ap i n t he par t i ci pant s of the tw o cons pi r aci es . T he R i gas es w er e t he m ai n act or s i n bot h i ndi ctm ent s . O t herm ember s of the R ig a s f a m ily a re a ls o c e n tr a l to b o th in d ic tm e n ts

. T he N ew Y or k I ndi ct m ent named a num b er cocons pi r at or s i ncl u d ing M icha el R igas , M ichae l M ul cahe y , J ames R

. B row n , an d T i m ot hyA

. W er t h. A l t hough ot herR i gas 15 fam i l ym ember s w er e nots peci fi cal l ynamed i n t he N ew Y ork in d ic tm e n t m a n y o f th e a lle g a tio n s re la te to “ th e R ig a s f a m ily,” in c lu d i n g J o h n R ig a s ’s “ w if e , s o n s , d a u g h te r a n d s o n -i n -l a w .” N ew Y o rk In d ic tm en t ¶ 2

. F o r ex am p le, the N ew Y o rk In d ictm e n t al l eg e s th a t “A d e lp h ia a d v a n c e d su b sta n tial a m o u n ts of ca s h t o ot herm embers o f t he R i gas Fam i l y , ” i d. ¶ 169, and t ha tt h e Ri g a s e s c a u s e d Ade l p h i a t o f i l e a Fo r m 10

- K “w hi ch f a ls e ly u n d e rs ta te d th e to ta l a m o u n t o f c o m p e n s a tio n to

. . . anotherm ember of the R i gas Fam i l yby fai l i ng t o i ncl ude the[s e]36 cas h advanc es , ” i d. ¶ 173. T he B i l l of Par t i cul ar s al s o l i s t ed at lea st nin e m e m b e rs o f th e R ig a s fa m ily w h o u se d th e A d e lp h ia c o rp o ra te a ir c ra f

t f o r p e rs o n a l tr a v e l. Si m i l ar l y , t he Penns y l vani a I ndi ctm en t al l eges t hatt he R i gases con spi red w i t h o t hers kno w n an d u nk no w n. Ital so al l eges t hatt he R i gas es caus ed M i chae l R i gas , J ames Ri gas , and E l l en R i gas t o under

- r epor tt hei ri ncome.

b. R em ai ni ng L i ot ard F act ors

i . P l ace T he N ew Y or k I ndi ctm enti s geogr aphi cal l ybr oadert han t he Penns y l vani a i ndi ct m ent , butbot h cons pi r aci es occurr ed nat i onw i de, and both I ndi ctm ent s focus on t he R i gas es ’ hom es a n d A d e lp h ia ’s c o rp o ra te h e a d q u a rt e rs in P e n n s y lv a n ia

. T he Penns y l vani a I ndi ct m ents peci fi cal l ynames C ouder s por t , Penns y l vani a; B uffa l o, N ew Y or k; B eave rC r eek, C ol or ado; and N ew Y or k C i t yas pl ace s w her e act s r el at ed t o t he cons pi r acy t ook pl ace . T he N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ental s o i nvol ves t hes e l ocat ion s. W hi l e the N ew Y or k I ndi ct m entdoes not s peci fi cal l yi dent i fyB uffa l o orB eave rC r eek, t he B i l l of P a rt ic u la rs d o e s in c lu d e a lle g a tio n s re la te d to th o s e l o c a tio n s . W e do not fi nd i t s i gni fi cant t hat t he N ew Y o rk Indi ct m ent al so i ncluded m i sr epresent at i on s t o invest ors acr oss th e nati on . T he all egati on s r el at ed to con versi on of A delp h ia f u n d s b yt h e Ri g a s e s

— a s u b s i d i a r ys c h e me wi t h i n t h e N ew Y ork Indi ct m ent— app ear t o b e t he sam e i n b o th i nd i ct m ents , and t hu s occurred i n the sam e l ocati on s.37 ii . O v er t A cts Bo t h i n d i c t me n t s s e e m t o a l l e g e c o n v e r s i o n o f t h e s a me a s s e t s , b y t h e s a m e m e a n s , i n t h e s a m e t r a n s a c t i o n s . C e r t a i n l y, eac h i ndi ctm ental l ege s act s notcont ai ned i n t he other

. T he N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent , w hi ch a ll eges bot h fr audul ent m i s r epr es ent at i ons aboutA del phi a’ s fi nance s and per for m ance , an d fra u d u lent co n ce alm en t of the f a ct th at th e R igas es w ere m i s us i ng corpor at e as s et s forper s onal purpos es , i s farbr oader th a n th e P e n n sy lv a n ia I n d ictm e n t. F u rth e r, th e P e n n s ylva n ia I ndi ctm enti ncl udes al l egat i ons r el at ed t o fi l i ng i ncome t ax re tu rn s, w h ic h a re n o t in c lu d e d in th e N e w Y o rk In d ictm e n t. H o w e v e r, k e yo v e rt a c ts i n b o th in d ictm e n ts a re tra n sa c tio n s in w h ich th e R ig a se s s e c re tlyto o k A d e lp h ia’ s c o rp o ra te a ss e ts .

ii i. R o le P lay ed b y D efe n d a n ts T he d efen dan t s w ere cent ral fi gu res i n bo t h co nspir aci es. T h e yc a u se d th e w ro n g f u l tran sa c tio n s, a n d w e re p e rso n a lly re s p o n s ib le f

o r h id in g th o s e tr a n s a c tio n s . Put t i ng al l of thes e f

act or s t ogethert he R i gas es have m ade outa non- fr i vol ous s how i ng of doubl e j eopar dy

. T he N ew Y o rk c o n sp ir ac yall eg es th at th e R igas e s to o k A d elph ia’s corpor at e as s et s fort hei r per s onal us e and hi d t hos e tr ans act i ons fr om i nves t or s and re g u la t or s . T he Penns y l vani a cons pi r acy al l eges t hatone r eas on t he R i gas es t ook t hos e s ame as s et s w as to a v oid pub l i cl yrecei ving l arge sal ari es on w hich theyw ou ld h a v e b e e n re q u ire d to p a yin c o m e tax . B e c a u se b o th i ndi ctm ent s conce r n t he s ame under l y i ng t r an sac t i ons , t hey relate t o the s am e ti m e a n d p lace an d inv o lve th e sa m e c o re g ro u p o f p a rticip a n ts. B o th in d ict m e n ts h a v e a c o m m o n g o a l, an d ind ividu al o v ert ac ts in bo th i n d ict m en ts w e re38 i nt er depende nt

. A ccor di ngl y , t he R i gas es h ave e s t abl i s hed a s t r ong i nfer ence t hat t her e w as a s i ngl e agr eement

. O n r emand, t h e G o v e r n m e n tw i l l b e a rt h e b u r d e n o f p r o v i n g b y a p r e p o n d e r a n c e o f

t h e e v i d e n c e t h a tt h e Ri g a s e s e n t e r e d i n t o t wo s e p a ra te a g re e m e n ts

.

C . C ol l at eralE s t oppel T he R i gas es al s o ar gue t hatt he s ubs t ant i ve count s of t ax evas i on s houl d be di s m i s s ed bas ed on col l at er al es t oppel

. T he R i gas es m ai nt ai n t hat , i n acqui t t i ng t hem of t he s ubstan ti ve co u nt s of w i r e fr aud, t he N ew Y or k j ur ym us thave f ound t hat anyas s et s t he R i gas es obt ai ned fro m A del phi a cons t i tut ed le g itim a te lo a n s , ra th e r t h a n in c o m e . “The D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e . . . embodi es pr i nci pl es of col l at er al es t oppel t hatca n b art he r el i t i gat i on of an i s s ue actual l ydeci ded i n a def endant ’ s favorbya v ali d and fi nal jud g m en t. ” U n it ed S tat es v. M erli n o , 3 1 0 F

. 3 d 1 3 7 , 1 4 1 (3d C ir

. 2 0 0 2 ); see also A sh e v. S w en so n , 3 9 7 U

. S

. 4 3 6 , 4 4 4 -45 (19 7 0 ). T he doctr i ne of c ol l at er al es t oppel ens ur es t hat “w hen an i s s ue of ul t i m at e fa cthas once be en det erm ine d bya val i d and fi nal j u d g me n t , t h a ti s s u e c a n n o t a g a i n b e l i t i g a t e d b e t we e n t h e s a me p a rt ie s in a n yf

u tu re la w s u it.” Id . a t 4 4 3

. T h e R ig ase s see m to arg u e tha t collat era l est o p p el ba rs t he G o v ern m entfr om r el i t i gat i ng t he i s s ue of w hethert hey m i s appr opr i at ed anyof A del phi a’ s as sets

. H ow ever , t he N ew Y or k j ur yonl yr etur ned a f i nal j udgm entof ac qui t t al as t o fi ve i ndi vi dual t r ans ac ti ons s etfor t h i n C ount s 17- 21 of the N ew Y or k I ndi ctm ent : ( 1) a Sept ember18, 2 0 0 1 t r ans ferof $5 m il li o n ; ( 2 ) an O ctob er 1 , 2 0 0 1 tr an sfe r o f $ 4

. 5 m il li o n ; ( 3 ) a M ar ch 28, 2002 t r ans ferof about $6. 4 m i l l i on; ( 4) a M ar ch 29,T hes e t r ans act i ons r el at e t o “mar gi n l oans ” the R i gas es 16 bor r ow ed fr om t hi r d par t i es t o buy A del phi a s t ock on beha l f of th e ir f a m ily . T h e tra n sa c tio n s liste d a b o v e c o rre sp o n d to paym ent s t he R i gas es caus ed A del phi a t o m ake a s paym ent s on th o se lo a n s. T h e se tra n sa c tio n s a re a lso d e sc rib e d a s o v e rt a c ts in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia I n d ictm e n t. 39 2002 t r ans ferof about $ 3

. 9 m il li on; and ( 5) an A pr i l 12, 2002 t r ans fer of about $4. 3 m i l l i on. A ccor di ngl y , even i f w e found 16 t hatcol l at er al es t oppel appl i ed, i tw oul d onl ypr ecl ude the G overnm entfr om cl ai m i ng t hatthe R i gas es avoi ded pay i ng t axes on t he $24 mi l l i on i nvol ved i n t hos e parti cu la r tr a n s a c tio n s . I n a cr i m i nal cas e, a d efendantbear s t he bur den of d e m o n stra tin g th a t th e iss u e h e se e k s to f o re c lo se w a s a c tu a lly decided i n t he fir stproceed i ng . S ee D ow l i ng v. U nit ed S t at es, 493 U

. S. 342, 350- 51 ( 1990)

. T hi s i s a hea vybur den. U ni t ed St at es v. C ons ol e, 13 F. 3d 641, 665 ( 3d C i r . 1993) ( “‘ W hen a cas e i n vol ves a gene r al ver di ct , es t abl i s hi ng t hatt he ver di ct n e c e ss a rilyd e te r m in e d a n yp a rticu lar iss u e is e x tre m e ly di ffi cul t

. ’ ” ( quot i ng U ni t ed St at es v. B ai l i n, 977 F. 2d 270, 282 ( 7t h C i r . 1992) ) )

. “[S] i nce i t i s us ual l y i m pos s i bl e t o det erm i ne w ith a n yp re c isio n u p o n w h a t b a sis th e ju ry re a c h e d a v e rd ict in a cr i m i nal cas e, it i s a r ar e s i tuat i on i n w hi ch the col l at er al es t oppel defe ns e w i l l b e av ail abl e t o a def endant

. ” U ni t ed St a t e s v . M c Gowan , 5 8 F. 3 d 8 , 1 2 ( 2 d Ci r . 1 9 9 5 ) ( c i t a t i on om i t t ed)

. Fur t her , “[t ] o cl ai m t he bene fi tof col l at er al es t oppel [ a d e f e n d a n t] m u st p ro v e th a t th e [ f irst] ju ryu n a n im o u sly ac q u itted h im

. ” M erli n o , 3 1 0 F

. 3 d at 14 1 (em p h asis ad d ed ).40 H ow ever , “th e rul e of c ol l at er al es t oppel i n cr i m i nal c a se s is n o t to b e a p p lied w ith th e h yp e rte c h n ica l an d a rc h a ic appr oach of

a 19th centur y pl eadi ng book, but w i t h r eal i s m and r a t i o n a l i t y . ” As h e , 3 9 7 U. S. a t4 4 4

. Th u s , t h e g o v e r nm ent cannotavoi d t he pr ecl us i ve ef fec tof a ge ner al j ur yv erd ic tby s pecul at ing tha tt he ver di ctcoul d have be en bas ed upon a fi ndi ng t hatt he governm enthad fa i l ed to pr ove el ement s t hat w er e neve rcont es t ed byt he def ens e. I d. A s he ar os e outof a m ul t i

- vi ct i m arm ed r obberyoccurr i ng ata pokergame i n t he bas ement of a home. I d. at437. D ur i ng hi s fi r s tt r i al , A s he w as charged w i t h robbing o ne o f t he p art i ci pan t s. T he o nlydefe nse o f f e r e d a t t r i a l w a s t h a tA s h e w a s n o tp r e s e n ta tt h e r o b b e r y. A ft erA s he w as acqui t t ed, t he governm en ts oughtt o t r yt he defe ndanta s econd t i m e foral l egedl yr obbi ng a di ffe r entpl ay er att he s ame gam e. I d. at439. T he Supr eme Court hel d t hatt he jur y ’ s ver di cti n t he fi r s tt r i al nece s s ar i l yes t abl i s hed thatt he defe ndantw as not one of t he r obber s and, t her efor e, pr ecl uded t he governm entfr o m rel i t i gat i ng t hati s s ue. I d. at445- 46 (ho lding that “[ t] h e sing le rati o n all yco n ce ivab le i ssu e b ef o re t he j ur yw as w hethert he [de fenda nt ] had bee n one of the ro b b e rs ” ). T o det ermi ne w hethercol l at er al es t oppel bar s r etr i al fol l ow i ng a gene r al ver di ctof ac qui t t al , a courtm us texami ne t he r ecor d of the pr i orpr ocee di ng and as k “w hethera rat ional j ur ycoul d have gr ounded i ts ver di ctupon an i s s ue othert han th a t w h ic h th e d e f

e n d a n t s e e k s to f

o re c lo s e f

ro m c o n s id e ra tio n .” I d. at 4 4 4

. “The i nqui r ym us tbe s eti n a pr act i cal fr ame and v ie w e d w ith a n e y e to a ll th e c ir c u m s ta n c e s o f th e p ro c e e d in g s .” I d. ( i nt ernal quot at i on m arks om i t t ed)

. N onethel es s , t he R i gas es fal l far s hor t of m eet i ng t hei r bur den of es t abl i s hi ng t hatU n d er 1 8 U

. S

. C

. § 1 3 4 3 , a d ef en d an t i s g u il tyo f w ir e 17 fr aud i f he has devi s ed a s cheme t o obt ai n m oneyorpr oper t yby m e a n s o f f

ra u d ; a n d tra n sm itt e d a n yc o m m u n ica tio n b yw ire in i nt er s t at e comm er ce f

ort he purpos e of e xecut i ng t he s cheme. 41 th e ya re e n tit led to c o llate ra l es to p p e l. T h e R igas es m aintain th at the i ssu e i n the N e w Y o rk p ro se c u tio n w a s w h e th e r th e a ss e ts th e y re c e iv e d f ro m A d e lp h ia w er e i ncome or l egi t i m at e l oans . T o s ucce ed on thei rcol l at er al es t oppel cl ai m , t he R i gas es w oul d have t o convi nce us thatt he onl yques t i on ati s s ue i n the N ew Y or k t r i al w as w hethert he R i gases r ecei ved t he w i re transfer s as i nco m e. In ot her w ords, 17 t he R i gas es w oul d have t o s how t hat t hei r onl ydefe ns e w as t hat t hey beli eved t hat t he w i re transfer s w ere l egit i m a te loans. H ow ever , t he r ecor d i s bar el ys uffi ci entt o es t abl i s h thatt hi s w as a d e f e n s e a t a ll. T he r ecor d i ncl udes an exc erptfr om t he N ew Y or k t r i al i n w hi ch def

ens e counse l ar gued t o t he j udge thatpr ovi ng t he tra n sf e rs w e re leg iti m a te lo a n s w a s a v a lid d e f e n se . In th is exce rpt , t he G overnm entar gued t hat t he ques t i on of w hethert he t r ans fer s w er e l oans orcompensa t i on w as i r r el evantbeca us e the re a l issu e w a s w h e th e r th e tra n sf e rs w e re a p p ro p ria tely d is c lo s e d

. T h e pa rt ies also su b m itted e x ce rpts o f th e G o v ern m en t’ s cl os i ng ar gum ent

. T he G overnm entar gued thatt he tr an sfe rs w er e n o t l oans , butal s o ar gued thatt he tr ans fer s w er e not app ropri at el y dis cl osed. T he p art i es di d n ot s ub m i tt he R i gases’ clos ing arg u m e n t, n o r did theysu b m itthe N ew Y o rk ju ry i ns t ruct i ons . A ccor di ngl y , i t i s i m pos s i bl e t o det erm i ne w i t h any42 c e rta in tyw h a t d e f

e n se s w e re ra ise d a t th e N e w Y o rk trial. B u t, t he record do es sugge stt hat there w ere ot her co n tes ted i ssues. A c c o r d i n g l y , th e Ri g a s e s h a v e f a i l e d t o me e tt h e i rb u r d e n of demonst r at i ng t hatt he N ew Y or k t r i al defi ni t i vel ydeci ded that the w ir e tran sfe rs w ere n o t com p en sati o n . T h u s, w e w il l aff irm t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of t he R i gas es ’ m ot i on t o di s m i s s t he tax e v a sio n c h a rg e s in th e P e n n sy lv a n ia I n d ictm e n t.

I I I . C oncl usi on For t he r eas ons s t at ed above , w e w i l l r emand t o t he Di s t r i c tCou r tt o c o n d u c ta n e v i d e n t i a r yh e a r i n g i n a c c o r d a n ce w i t h L i ot ar d on w hethert he cons pi r acych arge d i n t he Penns y l vani a I ndi ctm entw as par tof the co n s pi r at or i al a g r e e me n tc h a r g e d i n t h e Ne w Yo r k I n d i c tme n t

. Ho we v e r , we w i l l aff i r m t he D i s t r i ctC our t ’ s deni al of the R i gas es ’ m ot i on on coll at eral est op pel gr ou nd s. R E N D E L L , C i r cui tJ udge - di s s ent i ng. T he m a jori t yrenders com plex w hat I sugg esti s a stra ig h tf o rw a rd iss u e , su sc e p tib le o f a stra ig h tf

o rw a rd a n a ly sis u n d er B l ockbur

gerv. U ni t ed Stat es , 284 U

. S. 299 ( 1932)

. T he o n ly re leva n t qu esti o n req u ir ed to b e a sk ed an d an sw ere d h ere i s w hethert he tw o t ypes of cons pi r acy cr i m es out l i ned i n 18 U

. S. C

. § 371, cons pi r acyt o com m it an off ens e aga i ns tt he U nit e d S t at es and c on spi racyt o d efraud the U nit ed S t at es, cons t i tut e s epar ate offens es , r equi r i ng pr oof of di ffe r ent el ement s , and forw hi ch di ffe r entcumul at i ve puni s hm ent s can be met ed out

. I su g g est t hatt he ans w eri s cl ear l yand unequi vocal l y“y es , ” theyar e di s t i nct offe ns es . T w o of the thr ee cou rt s of ap peals t hat hav e add res sed this preci se i ssue, hav e soSe e Un ited S tates v . E rvas ti , 201 F .3 d 102 9, 10 39 -4 0 ( 8th 18 Cir. 2000) (finding that § 371 clea rly establishes two o ffenses); United States v. Thompson , 814 F.2d 1472, 1476-77 (10th Cir. 1987) (ap p l yi n g Blockburge r

to § 371 to determi n e that double jeopa rdy does not bar prosecut i o n s for c onspiracy to commit mail fraud and c on sp ira c y

to d e fra ud theUn ite d St ate s) ; but see United States v

. Smith ( David L.) , 4 24 F .3 d 9 92 , 1 00 0 ( 9th Cir . 2 00 5) ( de c lin ingto a p p l y Blockburger

to assess double jeopa

rdy b ec au s e all of the conspirac y

counts at issue alleg ed a violation of th e s ame statute, § 371). The majority does not ref

er to the c omprehensive, 19 thoughtf ul, 38 pag e opinion of the D i s tri ct Court concludingthat do ub leje op ard

y do e s n ot a

pp ly . I a gre e ent ir e ly

wi th Judg eJone s’ rea soning and I commend the District Court opini on to the reader a s its c larity is persuasive. See U nited States v. Rigas , 565 F. Supp. 2d 620 (M.D. Pa. 2008) . 43 hel d. G i ven that , t he fi r s tpar t of the maj or i t yopi ni on, w hi ch 18 r eas ons t o t he contr ary , is w r ong. T he s econd pa r t , w hi ch a p p l i e s a t e s t t h a t i s u s e f u l o n l yi f t h e f a c tp a t t e r n i n v o l v e d t wo al l eged c ons pi r aci es fort he s ame crim i nal offe ns e ( e. g. su c c e ss iv e p ro se c u tio n s fo r c o n sp ira c yto c o m m it m a il fra u d ) is u n n e c e s s a r y. 19

T he maj or i t ys ei zes o n the us e of the phr as e “di s t i nct s t atut or y p r ovi s i ons ” i n B l ockbur geras i nd i cat i ng t hat i t s t est onl yappl i es w hen the s ucce s s i ve offe ns es ar e found i n di ffe r ent sta tu tes

. 2 8 4 U .S . at 3 0 4 . B u t th a t is n o t w h a t B l ockbur ger“Theapplicablerule is that, where th e same act or 20 transac tion constitut es a violation of two distinct s ta tu to r y p rovisions , the test to be applied to determine whe ther there are two off enses or only one, is whethe r each provision re quires proof of a f act which the other doe s not.” Blockburge r , 284 U.S. at 304 (empha sis added). The majority

relies on i n apposi te ca ses that tend to cloud 21 the issue. Un ited S

tates v . E van s and Sa na bria v
. Un ited S tates de a lt wi th sin g le a c t - sin g lestatut or y prov isi on of fens e s. 85 4 F .2 d 5 6 ( 5th Cir. 1988) ; 437 U .S. 53 (1978). Braverm an v. United Statesinvolved theiss ueof

“ du pli c ity”wh e rea

sin g lec on sp ira c y ha d s e veral ob je c ts and differentiate d that fac t pattern from case s in which a sing le ac t vio late d tw o s tatut e s. 31 7 U. S. 49 (1 94 2)

. Th e se c a se s arefac tually distinguishable a

nd not controlling. Moreover , as I s u gges t is the correct a pproac h here , the Xavier

court a pplied the Block

bu rge r te st in order to a ssess whether two crimes under a single statute that was 44 s a ys . R a th e r i t r e f

e rs to “ d is tin c t s ta tu to ry p ro v is io n s .” 20 “D i s t i nct ” m eans “di s t i ngui s hed fr om al l ot her s . ” W EB ST ER ’ S II N EW R I VER SI DE D I CTI ONARY 390 ( 1988) . “Pr ovi s i on” means “[ a] c la u se in a sta tu te , c o n tr a c t o r o th e r l e g a l in s tru m e n t.” B L ACK ’ S L AW D I C TI ON ARY 1 3 4 5 (9 th e d . 2 0 0 9 )(e m p h a sis added)

. T o s ayt hatt he tw o pr ovi s i ons i n § 371 ar e notdi s t i nct i s t o eq uate conspir acyt o com m i t an o ffen se w ith c o n sp ira c yto d e f ra u d . T h a t m a k e s n o se n se . M o re o v e r, as is d isc u ss e d in m or e det ai l bel ow , appl i cat i on of B l ockb urger is th e w a yto det erm i ne the i nt entof C ongr es s , and i t s appl i cat i on her e l eads t o t he conc l us i on t hatnotonl yar e thes e di s t i nctpr ovi s i ons , but becau se t he el ement s di ffe r gr eat l y , C ongr es s i nt ended di ffe r ent pu nis hm ents and do ub l e j eop ardydo es not pr even tt he R i gas’ prosecuti on for con spi racyt o ev ade taxes. 21divided into dist inct statutory provisions were the “same offense.” 2 F.3d 1281, 1291 ( 3d Cir. 1993). See U nited States v. Alston , 77 F.3d 713, 718 (3d Cir. 1995) 22 (n otingthat § 3 71 re fers to “ tw o ty pes of c on sp ira c ie s” ); United States v. Tham , 960 F.2d 1391, 1399 (9th Cir. 1992) (noting that the

“ of fens e ”and

“ de fra ud”c laus es of § 37 1 id e nti fy tw o s epa

ra te c on sp ira c ie s w ithtw o s epa ra teob je c tiv e s) ; see also U

nited States v. Vazquez , 319 F.2d 381, 384 (3d Cir. 1963) (“Theg eneral conspira cy section of the Criminal Code, 18 U.S.C.A. § 371 . . . condemns two ty pe s o f c on sp ira c ie s. ” ); United States v. Brandon , 17 F.3d 409, 422 (1st Cir. 1994) (“18 U .S.C. § 371 cre ates two distinct criminal offenses: conspirac ies to commit offenses ag ainst the United States and c on sp ira c ie s to de fra

ud theUn ite d St ate s. ” ); Un i ted States v. Haga , 8 21 F.2d 1036, 1039 ( 5th Cir. 1987) (noting that § 371 “criminaliz es conspira cies of two sor ts”). 45 I f ther e w er e a doubtas t o C ongr es s ’ i nt ent as t o w hether t hes e ar e di s t i nctoffe ns es , one nee d onl yl ook ata cons i der at i on d e e m e d sig n if

ica n t b yth e S u p re m e C o u rt— th e sp e c if ic e v il s o u g h t to b e a d d re s s e d b yth e r e s p e c tiv e p ro v is io n s . See A l ber naz v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 4 5 0 U. S. 3 3 3 , 3 4 3 ( 1 9 8 1 ) ( “The c o n c lu sio n w e re a c h to d a y re g a rd in g th e in ten t o f C o n g re ss [ to cr eat e di s t i ncts t atut or yoffe ns es ] is r ei nfor ced byt he fa ctt hat th e tw o c o n sp ira c ysta tu tes a re d ir e c te d to se p a ra te e v ils pr es en t e d b yd ru g t r a f

f i c k i n g . ” )

. Vi r tu a l l ywi t h o u te x c e p t i o n, c o u r t s o f a p p e a l s h a v e h e l d t h a tt h e “ o f f e n s e ” a n d “ d e fr aud” cl aus es ai m t o pr ot ectdi ffe r entact or s and r edr es s di s t i ncts oci al harm s . O n t he one ha nd, t he “de fr aud” c l aus e foc us es

22 n a rr o w ly o n c o n s p ir a c ie s ta rg e tin g th e f e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. See U ni t ed Stat es v. B r andon , 1 7 F

. 3 d 4 0 9 , 4 2 2 (1st C ir

. 1 9 9 4 );46 U ni t ed St at es v. Fal cone , 960 F. 2d 988, 990 ( 11t h C i r . 1992) ( en b a n c ); U n itedS tates v. T

h om ps on , 8 1 4 F .2 d 1 4 7 2 , 1 4 6 7 -7 7 (1 0 th C i r . 1987)

. I t s purpos e i s t w o- fol d: ( 1) t o ens ur e t he i nt egr i t yof t he fe d era l tr eas ur yand ( 2) t o pr om ot e the s m oot h eff ect i ve oper at i on of the fe der al bur eauc r acy . A ccor d ingl y , t he “def r aud ” cl aus e pr ohi bi t s eff or t s notonl yt o chea tt he g o v e rn m e n t o u t o f

p ro p e rtyo r m o n e yb u t als o to in ter f e re w ith o ro b s t ru c tt h e o p e r a t i o n o f g o v e r n m e n tb y d e c e i t, c ra f t , t r i c k e r y, o r a t le a s t b ym e a n s th a t a re d is h o n e s t. See U ni t ed St at es v. A r ch Tradi ng C o. , 9 8 7 F .2 d 1 0 8 7 , 1 0 9 1 -9 2 (4 th C ir. 1 9 9 3 ); see al so H am m ers chm i dt v. U

ni t ed Stat es , 2 6 5 U

. S

. 1 8 2 , 1 8 8 (19 2 4 )). O n t he otherhand, t he “of fens e” c l aus e ai m s t o pr ot ectt he p u b lic g e n e ra lly. B ra ndon , 1 7 F .3 d a t 4 2 2 . A c c o rd in g ly , it s appl i cabi l i t ydoes nothi nge on the i dent i t yof the t ar get , w hi ch n e e d n o t b e th e f

e d e ra l g o v e rn m e n t. Id

. N ordoes t he “of fens e” cl ause r e qu i r e pr oo f o f i nter ference w i t h g ov ernm ent operat i on s. R ather , i tbr oadl yembra ces cons pi r aci es ai m ed atvi ol at i ng any f e d e ra l la w . Id .; s ee al

s o U ni t ed St at es v. Hi rs ch , 100 U

. S. 33, 35- 36 ( 1879)

. T hus, contr aryt o t he maj or i t y ’ s cont ent i on, t he t w o pr ongs of § 371 do not s i m pl ydes cr i be al t ernat i ve means of comm i t t i ng t he s ame of fens e, but i ns t ead des cr i be tw o di s t i nct c ri m e s .

T he maj or it y m ai nt ai ns t hati t s pos i t i on r efl ect s t he h o ld in g o f

th e “ m a jo rityo f th e C irc u it C o u rts o f

A p p e a ls to c o n sid e r th e iss u e .” J u st th e o p p o site is tru e : th e N in th C irc u it C our tof A ppeal s al o n e has hel d t hatt he “of fens e” a nd “def r aud” cl aus es i dent i fy t he same offe ns e fordoubl e j eopar dy pu rposes. Sm it h (D a v idL .) , 424 F. 3d 992. I n fac t , t w o ot her c o u rts o f a p p e a ls h a v e c o n c lu d e d th a t C o n g re ss in ten d e d toT h em a j o ri ty f a i l s t o d i s c u s s Ervastiand Thompson and 23 m e r e l y c i t e s th e s ec a s e s i na s tri n gc i t at i o na s c o ntr ar

y a uth o ri ty. 47 a u th o riz e c u m u lativ e p u n ish m e n t f o r v io latio n o f

b o th pr ovi s i ons . I n E rv a sti , 2 0 1 F .3 d a t 1 0 3 9 -4 0 , th e E ig h th C irc u it r eas oned that§ 371, w hi ch us es “ei t her

. . . o r ” l anguage , “pl ai nl yes t abl i s hes t w o offe ns es . ” It bol s t er ed thi s concl us i on bynot i ng t he uni que el ement s of pr oof r equi red fo r the “off ens e” an d “def

r aud” c r i m es . I n Thom ps on , 814 F. 2d at 1476- 77, t he Tent h C i r cui t , appl y i ng B l ockbur ger , al s o fou n d no “c o lorab le claim ” o f d o u b le j eo p ard y . T hes e court s had no d i f f i c u l t yr e a c h i n g t h i s c o n c l u s i o n , p r e s u ma b l yb e c a u s e t h e t wo off e n s e s a r e s o c l e a r l y s e p a r a t e a n d d i s t i n c t a s a ma t t er of s ubs t ance . Sm ith , on t he other hand, r el i ed sol el y on for m , and c o n c lu d e d w ith o u t d isc u ss io n th a t B l ockbur gerd id n o t ap p ly beca us e bo t h cr i m es appea ri n t he s ame st atut e. I s ubm i tt hat E rv a sti and Thom

ps on ar e more per s uas i ve. 23

T he maj or i t yr eli es on ca s es i nt erpr et i ng § 371 i n t he d u p l i c i t y c o n t e x t a s a u t h o r i t y f o rp u rp o s e s o f

d o u b l e j e o p a r d y. T h e p ri n ciple o f d u p li cityem an ates f rom F ed

. R

. C ri m . P

. 8 (a), w hi ch pr ohi bi t s t he governm entfr om c h a r g i n g s e p ar at e off ens es in a si ngl e i ndi ctm entcount

. Sever al cour t s of appe al s have conclud ed t hatt he “of fens e” a nd “def

r aud” c l aus es do not cons t i tut e s epar at e off

ens es f o r p u rp o se s o f

R u le 8 (a ). W h ile a t f irst b lu sh , ap p li c a ti o n o f th e se p re c e d e n ts to th e d o u b le j eopar dycont exts eems s ens i bl e, I s ubm i tt hatt he fi ndi ng t hat t he “of fens e” a nd “def

r aud” c l aus es ar e nots epar at e off ens es for d u p licity p u rp o se s d o e s n o t c o n tro l th e a n a ly sis f o r d o u b leSee U nited States v. W

illiams , 705 F.2d 603, 624 ( 2d Cir. 24 1983) (“The specific ity of the conspira cy-to-def raud alleg ations and thejur y ’s ve rdic ts o n th esu

bs tanti vec ounts e lim inateany po ssibil ity of the c oncer

ns expressed in Un ited S

tates v . R os e nb latt , 554 F.2d 36, 40-42 (2d Cir. 1977), on which appe llants rely , that a count alleg ing only a conspiracy

to defra ud the Unit ed S t at es in some unspec ified way risks conviction without either an alleg ation or pr oof of the 48 j eop ardypu rposes. R u le 8 (a ) se rv e s th re e k e yp u rp o se s: (1 ) to ens ur e the def

endantr ece i ves adequa t e not i ce of t he off ens es char ged; ( 2) t o m i ni m i ze t he r i s k t hat j ur or s w er e notunani m ous as t o the part i cularoff

enses charged ; and (3) t o en able pr eci se det erm i nat i on of t he par t i cul ar offe ns es of w hi ch the def endant w as convi ct ed or acqui t t ed, cr i t i cal t o avoi d r epr os ecut i on of the d e f e n d a n t f o r t h e s a m e o f

f e n s e . S e e U

n ited S ta tes v . M

a rg io tta , 6 4 6 F .2 d 7 2 9 , 7 3 3 (2 d C ir. 1 9 8 1 ); U ni t ed Stat es v. Mur r ay , 618 F. 2d 892, 896 ( 2d C i r . 1980)

. T hes e cons i der at i ons det erm i ne, i n l ar ge part , w h ethe r vi ol at i on of di s t i ncts t atut or ypr ovi s i ons m ayb e ch ar ged i n a s i ngl e i ndi ctm entcount

— t hati s , w hether an i nd i ct m ent cou nt i s i m perm i ssi blyd u p li ci t ou s. A s t he Second C i r cui tC our t o f A p p eal s expl ai ned i n M ur r ay , “I f the d o ctri n e o f d u p li cit yis t o b e m o re tha n an ex erc ise i n m ere f o rm a lism , itm u st b e in v o k e d o n lyw h e n a n in d ictm e n t af f e c ts t he pol i cy cons i der at i ons di s cus s ed above ; beca us e thos e pol i cy cons i der at i ons ar e nott hw ar ted h er e, w e conc l ude thatt he i ndi ctm entw as notd upl i ci t ous . . . . ” 618 F. 2d at897- 98. A ccor di ng l y , court s have he l d t hata s i ngl e i ndi ct m entcount c h a rg in g v io latio n s o f

th e “ o f f e n se ” a n d “ d e f

ra u d ” c lau se s– if fr amed w ith ad eq u ate sp ec ifi city

– w o u ld en abl e det erm i nat i on of th e “ c o n v icte d ” o f

f e n se s a n d th u s w o u ld n o t b e im p e rm iss ib ly du pli ci t ou s. 24essential nature of thefra ud.”). In Smith ( David L.) , the c ourt he ld that § 37 1 doe s not c re ate 25 dis tin c t s tatuto r

y o f f e n s e s ; i t did

s o , h o w e v e r , w it

h o ut re f e r e n c eto, and independent of, c ase law reachingthe same c onclusion in the duplicity context. 424 F.3d at 1000. Se eals o U

nite d Sta tes v. Dale , 782 F. Supp. 615, 619 26 (D.D.C. 1991) ( distinguishing c ourts’ co n s truction of § 371 in the duplicity and double jeopa

rdy contexts and rejec ting a

pplication of 49 T he doubl e j eopar dy i nqui r y , by contr as t , focus es not on t he cl ari ty o f the j ur yver di ctbutr atheron w hethera l at er pr os ecut i on ent ai l s t he doubl e puni s hm entpr o h ibi t ed byt he C o n stitu tio n . T h e o v e rrid in g iss u e is n o t w h e th e r a sp e c if ic i ndi ctm entcounts peaks w it h t he r equi s i t e l uci di t y , enabl i ng pr eci s e det erm i nat i on of the j ur y ’ s fi ndi ngs , butr atherw hether C ongr es s i nt ended t o i m pos e m ul t i pl e puni s hm entforvi ol at i on of di s t i ncts t atut or ypr ovi s i ons . A nd, her e, cons i der i ng t he o b v i o u s d i f

f e r e n c e b e t wee n t h e t wo typ e s o f c o n s p i r a c i es a ll e g e d a n d th e ir im p lica tio n s f o r p u rp o se s o f

se n ten c e , su re ly it d id n o t. T h e se f

u n d a m e n tallyd istin c t in q u iries p re c lu d e ro te appl i cat i on of dupl i ci t y p r ece dent s t o t he doubl e j eopar dy cont ext

. A ccor di ngl y , no fede r al cour t of appeal s has r el i ed on i t s dupl i ci t ypr ece dent s t o det erm i ne w hether t he “of fens e” a nd

“ d e f raud” clauses def

in e d istin c t o f

f e n se s f o r p u rp o se s o f

d o u b le j eopar dy

. A nd, i n fac t , atl eas tone court of appe al s has

25 cons t rued § 371 dif

f erently i n t he doubl e j eopar dyt han i n t he d u p lic ity c o n te x t. C om

pa re Th o mps on , 814 F. 2d at1476- 77 ( doubl e j eopar dy ) , w i t h U ni t ed Stat es v. H

auck , 9 8 0 F

. 2d 611, 6 1 5 (10 th C ir

. 1 9 9 2 ) (du p li city ). 26double jeopardy case s to the duplicity

inquiry). 50 E qual l yconce r ni ng i s t he maj or i t y ’ s r ej ect i on of B l ockb urger as t he contr ol li n g t es tfordoubl e j eopar dyi n t he s i tuat i on before u s. T he maj or i t yr el i es on U ni t ed Stat es v. L io t ard , 8 1 7 F. 2 d 1 0 7 4 ( 3 d Ci r . 1 9 8 7 ) , a s s e t t i n g f o r t h t he ap p li cabl e t es tfordef

en d an ts’ d o u b le j eo p ard yclaim

. H o w ev er, t he Supr eme C our thas rep ea tedl yand cons i s t ent l yhel d t hat w her e di s t i nctcons pi r acypr ovi s i ons ar e i m pl i cat ed, t he B l ockbur gert es tgoverns w hether s epar at e pr os ecut i on of ea ch v io la tio n o f

f e n d s th e D o u b le J e o p a rd yC la u s e . S ee A l ber naz , 4 5 0 U .S . at 3 3 9 -4 2 ; A m er i can Tobacco Co. v. U ni t ed Stat es , 328 U .S

. 7 8 1 , 7 8 8 (1 9 4 6 ). L i otard ap p li es w h ere there are s ucce s s i ve pr os ecut i ons for the s ame offens e. T he ce nt r al inq u iryu n d er L i otard is w h e th e r th e p a rticu lar a g re e m e n ts in to w hi ch def

endant s ent er ed w er e partof a s i ngl e ove rarchi ng c o n s p i r a c y . Bu tt h a tc o n s i d e r a t i o n i s r e l e v a n t o n l yi f t wo cr i m i nal cons pi r aci es i nvol vi ng t he s ame offens e ar e cha r ged. T h a t is n o t w h a t is b e f o re u s . H e re , B l ockbur gern o t o n ly appl i es ; m or e than tha t , t he r es ul tr eac hed vi a the B l ockbur ger a n a ly sis p ro v e s th e p o in t: th e e lem e n ts a re d if f e re n t an d se p a ra te puni s hm ent s w er e t her efor e i nt ended and doubl e j eopar dydoes n o ta p p l y.

B eca us e B l ockbur

gerfocus es on t he el ement s of the p ro v isio n s v io late d

– n o t th e f a ctual det ails o f

th e a g re e m e n ts in to w hi ch def

endant s ent er ed–i tappl i es , even w her e the part i cul ar vi ol at i ons emanat e fr om a si ngl e over ar chi ng agr eement , ( as t he m a jo ri t y, appl y i ng t he Li ot ar d fact ors, con cl ud ed w as the caseSee U nited States v. Marren , 890 F.2d 924, 9 36 (7th Cir. 27 19 8 9 ) ( “ Ing e n e r a l , ana gr e e m e ntt o c o mm i ts e v e r a lun l aw f u la c ts mu s t b ec h arg e d

a s a s in g lec o n s p ira c y . Ane xc ep ti o n , h o w ever , e xists wh e reCon gre ss h a s ma nif e ste d a n inte nt t o a

uth orizemultip le punis hments fo r c on du c t that vi olate s two statutory provisions .”) ( in t er n alc i t a ti o n omi tte d) (emph a sisa dd e d) ; United States v. Phillips , 664 F.2d 971, 1007 (11th Cir. 1981) (“[U]nder the Block bu rge r te st it i s poss ibl e fo r a sin g le c ri min a l agre e me nt or c on sp ira c y

to g iveri se to d i s tinct offense s under spe cific, separate conspira cy statutes.”); United States v. Barton , 6 47 F .2d 22 4, 23 5 ( 2d Cir . 1 98 1) (“ It is undisputed that a sing le transa ction may g ive rise to li ab ility

for dis tin c t of fens e s und e r s epa

ra testatut e s wi tho ut v iol atin gtheDo ub le J eopardy Clause. This is true whether th e o ff enses besubstantive crimes . . . or c r im es o

f c onspiracy .”) ( emphasis adde d); se eals o Un ited S tates v . M

orris , 99 F.3d 476 ( 1st Cir. 1996) (applyi ng Blockb u r ger te st t o d e te rm inewh e ther D ou bleJeop ard

y Cla us e prohibited prosecution under two distinct conspiracy provisions, 18 U.S.C. § 371 and 21 U.S.C. §§ 841(a)(1) & 846)

.

51 h e r e .) O n th is p o in t, A l ber naz i s i ns t ruct i ve. T her e, t he

27 Supr eme C our thel d t hat , not w i t hs t an d i ng a s i ngl e nar cot i cs cons pi r a c yo ra g r e e me n t , b e c a u s e di s t i nctoffe ns es of cons pi r acy to im p o rt m a riju a n a , 2 1 U .S .C . § 9 6 3 , an d c o n sp ira c yto di s t r i but e mar i

j uana, 21 U

. S. C

. § 846, w er e s epar at el ychar ged, th e re is n o d o u b le je o p a rd yv io l a t i o n . A l ber naz , 450 U

. S. at 340. B eca us e C ongr es s int ended t o author i ze c ons ecut i ve sen tence s forvi ol at i on of the tw o di s t i nctoffe ns es , t he C o u rt concl uded thati m p os i t i on of cumul at i ve puni s hm entw as perm i s s i bl e, even w her e onl y a si ngl e over ar chi ng agr eementor cons pi r acyexi s t ed. A l ber naz ap p li ed B l ockbur geras t he es t abl i s hed m ethodol ogy for adj udi cat i ng doubl e jeopar dy52 cl ai m s br oughtbycons pi r acydefe ndant s . I n A m er i can Tobacco C o. , deci ded al m os tfourdeca des befor e A l ber naz , t h e S u p r e me C our t , agai n appl y i ng B l ockbur ger , appr oved the i m pos i t i on of se p a ra te p e n a lti e s f

o r d e f e n d a n ts c o n v icte d o f

c o n sp irin g to r es t r ai n t r ade i n t he t obacc o i ndus t r y i n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 1 of th e S h e rm a n A c t, 1 5 U .S .C . § 1 (1 9 7 6 ), an d o f c o n sp irin g to m onopol i ze the t obacc o i ndus t r yi n vi ol at i on of s ect i on 2 of that A ct , 15 U

. S. C

. § 2 ( 1976)

. 328 U

. S. at 788. T he C our tr ej ect ed a doubl e j eopar dyar gum ents im i l art o t hatpr es s ed by defe ndant s her e:

On t h e a u t h o r i t yo f

t he B raver m an cas e, peti t i on ers cl ai m t hat there i s butone cons pi r acy , n a m e ly , a c o n sp ira c yto f ix p ric e s. In c o n tra st to th e sin g le c o n sp ira c yd e sc rib e d in th a t ca se in s e p a ra te c o u n ts , al l ch ar ged underthe gene r al c o n sp ira c

y sta tu te , w e h av e h ere se p a ra te s t at ut or y of f ens es , one a cons pi r acyi n r es t r ai ntof t r ade thatm ays t op s hor tof m onopol y , and the ot hera cons pi r acy t o m onopol i ze t hat m aynotbe c o n ten t w ith re stra in t sh o rt o f m o n o p o ly . O n e is m ade cr i m i nal by§ 1 and the otherby§ 2 of the S h e rm a n A c t.

W e bel i eve a l s o t hati n ac c o r dance w i t h t he B l ockbur gercas e, §§ 1 and 2 of the Sher m an A ct req u ir e p roo f o f c o n sp ir ac ies w h ich a re r eci pr ocal l ydi s t i ngui s hab le fro m an d ind ep en d ent o f each ot heral t hough t he obj ect s of theSe eErvas ti , 2 01 F .3 d 1 02 9; Un ited Sta tes v . M orris , 99 28 F .3 d 476 (1 st 1 99 6) ; Marren , 8 90 F .2 d 9 24 ; United States v. Thompson , 814 F.2d 1472 ( 3d Cir. 1987); U n ited States v. Nakashian , 820 F.2d 549, 552-54 (2d Cir. 1987); United States v. Twomey , 806 F.2d 1136, 1143 ( 1st Cir. 1986). The “ offense” c lause of § 371 r equ i res proof: (1) of an 29 agree ment to commit an offenseproscri b ed by federal law ; (2) that the def endant wa s a party t o th e agreement; (3) that the de fenda nt 53 cons pi r aci es m aypar t i al l yover l ap.

Id

. at788 ( ci t at i on s om i t t ed) ( emphasi s added)

. B eca us e the B l ockbur ger t es t , w hi ch foc us es on t he e lem e n ts of the o ffen se s , contr ol s her e, t he maj or i t y ’ s appl ic at i on of L i otard ’s m u lti

f a c to r inq uiry , exa m in in g w h e th e r th e p a rticu lar a g re e m e n ts in to w hi ch def

endant s ent er ed cons t i tut ed a singl e over ar chi ng con spi racy , i s m i spl aced a nd un necessary . T he d i st i ncti ven ess o f th e o ff

en ses u n d er B l ockbur

ger , nott he exi s t ence of an o v e ra rch ing ag ree m en t un d er L i otard , i s w hatm at t er s her e for p u rp o s e s o f

d o u b le je o p a rd y .

U n d er B l ockbur

ger , t h e i m pos i t i on of cumul at i ve p u n ishm en t i s p erm issi b le fo r vio la tion o f d ist inct statu tory pr ovi s i ons , pr ovi ded thateach pr ovi s i on r equi r es a uni que el ement of pr oof. C ons i s t entw i t h t he posit ion adopt ed by virtuall y al l cou rt s of appe al s, w e con cl ud e t h a t th is 28 r equi r ement i s eas i l y s at i s fi ed her e; t he maj or i t ydoes notopi ne other w i se. A ccordi ng l y , successi ve prosecut i on s of the R i gas’

29intentionally joined the agreement with an awa rene ss of its unlawful objectives; and ( 4) that one of the conspirators committed an over t act in furtheranceof the c onspiracy

. SeeThird Circuit Mod. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.18.371 A (2008). The “de fra ud” cla use of § 371 require s proof: (1) of an agree ment among two or m ore persons to defraud the United States; (2) that the defendant was a par ty to the agreement; (3) that th ede fend ant in tention a lly joine d th ea gre e me nt a

wa reof its ob je c ti v e to d e f

r a u d th e Un it e d St ate s ; an d ( 4 ) th at o n e o f the c o n s p i r at o r s c o mm i tt e d

ano v e rta c ti nf

urth e r an c e o f

th ec o n s p i r a c y. SeeThird C ircuit Mod. Crim. Jury Instr. 6.18.371B ( 2008). The Model Jury In s tructions def ine “de fra

ud” as to “ cheat the United S t at e s g o v e r

nm e nto r any o f i t s a g e n c i e s o uto f

m o n e y o r

p ro p e rty” or to “obstruc t or interfere w i th o ne of theUnited States g ov e rnme nt’ s la

wf ul f un c tio ns , by de c e it, c ra ft , tric kery, o r dish on e st means.” Id

.

54 unde r t h e “ o f

f e n s e ” a n d “ d e f

r a u d ” c l a u s e s o f § 3 7 1 do not vi ol at e the D oubl e J eopar dyC l aus e.

I s u b mi tt h a tt h e ma

j o r i t y ’ s r e a s o n i n g a n d r e s u l ti s n ot cons i s t entw i t h es t abl i s hed doubl e j eopar dyj ur i s prudence and w i l l bar prosecut i on s that C on gress did not i ntend t o p roh ib it. I t her efor e r es pect ful l ydi s s ent