Opinion ID: 71881
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: issues

Text: Fern raises six issues on appeal. We find each unpersuasive and address only three: (1) whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred Fern's retrial after Fern requested a mistrial; (2) whether the superseding indictment contained sufficient information to sustain the three false statement counts against Fern; and (3) whether the district court's failure to submit the issue of materiality to the jury was harmless error.6 CONTENTIONS Fern contends that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred his retrial because the government's conduct left him with no choice but to ask for a mistrial. Fern also contends that the false statement counts of the indictment against him were insufficient because they failed to include necessary allegations of willfulness and materiality, and failed to identify the particular false material statements Fern made. Finally, Fern contends that the failure to submit the issue of materiality to the jury was incurably prejudicial, i.e., not harmless error, because a reasonable juror could have concluded that the alleged false statements were not material because environmental officials did not rely on the statements in their decision-making process. The government contends that the Double Jeopardy Clause posed no barrier to Fern's retrial because the prosecution did not goad Fern into requesting a mistrial. The government also contends that the false statement counts of the indictment contained sufficient allegations to apprise Fern of the charges against him and to warrant an inference that the grand jury found probable cause to support all the essential elements of the charges against Fern. Finally, the government contends 6 Fern's other appeal issues concern various evidentiary rulings and the jury instruction in this case. We affirm on these issues pursuant to Eleventh Circuit Rule 36-1. 8 that materiality was not a jury issue in this case. Alternatively, the government contends that the failure to submit the issue of materiality to the jury did not constitute reversible error because no reasonable juror could have found that the alleged false statements in this case were not material.