- 17 -
(5th Cir. 1985). The defendant in Price was acquitted of two
counts and inconsistently convicted on a third count concerning
conspiracy to obtain gratuities. On appeal, the conviction was
reversed and remanded for a new trial on the conspiracy count.
In the second trial the defendant was again convicted. On appeal,
the defendant argued that under the doctrine of collateral
estoppel, the trial court improperly permitted the introduction
of evidence which should have been barred as a result of the
acquittal on two of the charges. The Court of Appeals affirmed
the conviction, holding that, by convicting the defendant in the
first trial, the jury necessarily resolved factual issues
adversely to the defendant. The court stated that the
inconsistent verdicts on the other two counts were not to be read
as a finding of fact favorable to the defendant on evidence which
overlapped each count. In sum, the teaching of Price is that
collateral estoppel is properly applied as to those facts
necessary to find for conviction, notwithstanding that those
facts may have also been essential to a related charge on which
the defendant was acquitted. United States v. Chin, 795 F.2d
496, 499 (5th Cir. 1986); cf. Blanton v. Commissioner, 94 T.C.
491 (1990) (Court applies collateral estoppel to certain facts
for which taxpayer was convicted under the Hobbs Act,
notwithstanding the dismissal of related mail fraud charges).
Page: Previous 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 NextLast modified: May 25, 2011