Important Cases
This state case involving intoxication illustrated the principles of collateral estoppel.
Double jeopardy is not implied by two prosecutions from these distinct parties.
What are dual sovereigns?
Collateral estoppel, but not double jeopardy, might apply in a proceeding alleging identical charges but a different _____ from the prior prosecution, as in Long.
What is "victim"?
This type of joinder requires that certain charges must always be brought together and cannot be severed by the court.
What is mandatory joinder?
This term describes improper joinder (as distinct from improper failure to sever).
What is misjoinder?
This case established that prosecutions in different states or by the federal government do not violate double jeopardy.
Bartkus v. Illinois (1959)
This policy governs federal prosecutors in deciding whether it is appropriate to bring a duplicate prosecution.
What is the Petite Policy?
Collateral estoppel is binding only as to this person in a future prosecution.
Who is the defendant originally tried?
This is the standard appellate courts use in determining whether charges were properly joined.
This is the remedy granted when a court rules defendants were improperly joined.
What is separate trials? (i.e. vacatur for separate trials)
This case established that defendants may be tried for two similar crimes as long as each has an ESSENTIAL ELEMENT that the other does not.
Blockburger v. United States (1932)
When a jury deadlocks, courts will declare a mistrial bars future prosecutions only when this standard is met.
What is manifest necessity?
Collateral estoppel only applies based on these types of criminal proceedings.
What are trials? (Jury or bench trials, not guilty pleas)
This test applies when evaluating whether more than one conspiracy can be charged from numerous actions.
What is totality of the circumstances?
This remedy is the most common way courts attempt to limit prejudice from common evidence in a joint trial.
What are limiting instructions to the jury?
This case governs how to admit co-defendant's statements that may only be used against certain co-defendants.
Bruton v. United States (1968)
These three types of case postures/histories can be the basis for a double jeopardy claim.
What is prior conviction, prior acquittal, and simultaneous charging in the same proceeding?
These two things must be shown for collateral estoppel to apply in a second proceeding.
What are "necessarily decided fact" and "essential element" of charge in second trial?
Judges have an ongoing responsibility to sever the charges if this evidentiary problem arises, and to state that they have considered it in their initial ruling on severance.
What is undue prejudice? (Court must weigh prejudicial effect vs. probative value)
This very unusual remedy can be used by judges who want to keep all defendants in one trial but do not want to risk prejudice from overlapping evidence.
What are "dual" juries? (or "mega-trials")
This case incorporated the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy prohibition against the states.
Benton v. Maryland (1969)
This snarkily-named and now-defunct doctrine held that unconstitutionally obtained information from a state prosecution could be legally used in a federal prosecution.
What is the silver platter doctrine?
Even where a jury returns verdicts on all counts in a trial, collateral estoppel will not attach to a jury's finding in this circumstance.
What is inconsistent verdict? (e.g. Guilty on bank heist but Not Guilty on bank heist conspiracy)
According to the majority rule, prosecutors can join charges together when they show any of these three things unite the charges.
What are:
1. same act or transaction
2. similar character of action on different occasion
3. part of same larger scheme or plan
Name any of the four factors that courts generally consider to weigh against joint trial.
1. evidence against one defendant that incriminates the other
2. harmful overflow prejudice from evidence against one defendant
3. significant disparity in the strength of evidence against one defendant
4. co-defendants raising mutually antagonistic defenses