Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/18pdf/17-532_q86b.pdf
Page Number: 43

18 

HERRERA v. WYOMING 

ALITO, J., dissenting 

(Second) of Judgments §33, at 332.

It is true that we have been cautious about applying the
doctrine  of  issue  preclusion  in  criminal  proceedings.  See 
e.g., Currier v. Virginia, 585 U. S. ___, ___ (2018) (slip op., 
at 9); Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 580 U. S. ___, ___ 
(2016)  (slip  op.,  at  4).    But  we  have  never  adopted  the
blanket  prohibition  that  Herrera  advances.  Instead,  we 
have  said  that  preclusion  doctrines  should  have  “guarded 
application.”  Id., at ___ (slip op., at 4).

We employ such caution because preclusion rests on “an 
underlying  confidence  that  the  result  achieved  in  the 
initial litigation was substantially correct,” and that confi-
dence, in turn, is bolstered by the availability of appellate
review.  Standefer v. United States, 447 U. S. 10, 23, n. 18 
(1980);  see  also  Restatement  (Second)  of  Judgments  §28,
Comment a, at 274.  In Currier and Bravo-Fernandez, we 
were  reluctant  to  apply  issue  preclusion,  not  because  the 
subsequent trial was criminal, but because the initial trial 
was.  While a defense verdict in a criminal trial is gener-
ally not subject to testing on appeal, summary judgment in 
a civil declaratory judgment action can be appealed.  Indeed, 
the Crow Tribe did appeal the District Court’s decision to 
the  Tenth  Circuit  and  petitioned  for  our  review  of  the 
Tenth Circuit’s decision.  The concerns that we articulated 
in Currier and Bravo-Fernandez have no bearing here.9 

For these reasons, Herrera is precluded by the judgment 

* 

* 

* 

—————— 

9 Nor is that the only distinction between those cases and this one.  In 
both  Currier  and  Bravo-Fernandez  a  party  sought  preclusion  as  to  an 
element of the charged offense.  The elements of the charged offense are 
not  disputed  here—Herrera’s  asserted  treaty  right  is  an  affirmative 
defense.  And while the State bears the burden of proof as to elements 
of the offense, under Wyoming law, the defendant asserting an affirma-
tive  defense  must  state  a  prima  facie  case  before  any  burden  shifts  to 
the State.  See Duckett v. State, 966 P. 2d 941, 948 (Wyo. 1998).