Court Opinion

ID: 9727667
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 13:46:58.842611+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:25:41.253957
License: Public Domain

GALLAGHER, Senior Judge,
dissenting:
If in this case Felder had been acquitted, as he was on the weapon possession charge and, also, had been convicted of the shooting and armed robbery, we would think nothing of the obvious inconsistency, because this is commonplace in trials with multiple count indictments. We would ignore it even though it meant that the jury would have decided that the defendant shot (or robbed) the victim with a gun the jury found he did not have. Inconsistent verdicts like that occur frequently where there are multiple counts, as we know so well.
Here, instead of acquitting on the remaining basic felony charges, the jury hung. One would logically expect that, to be consistent, it would have acquitted, as one could hardly shoot or commit the armed robbery without the gun.
While the majority opinion has a theoretical appeal, we know it to be a fact of life in the administration of the criminal justice system — where multiple count indictments are involved — that to follow this course would be to ignore the well-recognized realities of the trial court. Since the jury hung on some counts of the multiple count indictment, I think the government should not be barred from a retrial of these counts. United States v. Smith, 337 A.2d 499 (D.C.1975).
Needless to say, if the first trial in this case had involved only one count, this being the weapon charge on which he was acquitted, the result, for me, would be different and I would favor application here of the collateral estoppel doctrine in relation to a subsequent trial on the presently charged offenses, which would necessitate possession of the weapon.