Opinion ID: 1403275
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 7

Heading: Distinction Between Traditional Principles of Double Jeopardy and Collateral Estoppel

Text: Traditional Principles of Double Jeopardy: Generally stated, the traditional principles of double jeopardy bar repeated prosecution for the same identical act and crime. 4 W. Blackstone, Commentaries on the Laws of England 330 (1769). See also Yeager, 129 S.Ct. at 2371 (Scalia, J., dissenting). Therefore, the state may not reprosecute a defendant on a charge after being found not guilty on that charge. On the other hand, it is uniformly held that if a jury is unable to reach a decision on all charges against a defendant, resulting in a mistrial, that double jeopardy does notabsent other circumstancesprevent the state from reprosecuting the defendant on the deadlocked charges. Where a jury has deadlocked on a charge in an indictment, and a mistrial declared, jeopardy has not terminated and the state can properly retry the defendant on the deadlocked charge absent other circumstances. Yeager, 129 S.Ct. at 2366. Collateral Estoppel. Issues relevant to collateral estoppel in criminal cases generally arise where a jury has acquitted a defendant on some charges, but has deadlocked on other charges, and where the acquitted charges and the deadlocked charges arise from the same or similar conduct and depend on the same or similar proof. The Yeager Court held that collateral estoppel precludes relitigating any issue that was necessarily decided by a jury's acquittal in a prior trial. Yeager, 129 S.Ct. at 2366. `When an issue of ultimate fact has once been determined by a valid and final judgment' of acquittal, it `cannot be relitigated' in a second trial for a separate offense. Yeager, Id. at 2367, citing Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443, 90 S.Ct. 1189, 25 L.Ed.2d 469 (1970).