- 10 -
2. Whether Special Circumstances Are Present
Petitioner contends that collateral estoppel does not apply
because the Government lost or destroyed exculpatory evidence
that was critical to his criminal defense and that the prosecutor
and other attorneys engaged in misconduct at his criminal trial.
Petitioner previously litigated his claims of misconduct by
the prosecutor and attorneys. The District Court and the Court
of Appeals rejected those claims. Petitioner’s evidence in this
case supporting these claims was vague and uncorroborated.
Petitioner has not shown that the procedures in his criminal
trial were unfair. We conclude that no special circumstances
exist to bar the application of collateral estoppel here.
3. Effect of Application of Collateral Estoppel
Petitioner contends that the issues in this case and the
criminal case are not substantially the same and thus that
collateral estoppel does not apply because this is a civil case.
We disagree. A person convicted of a crime can be collaterally
estopped in a later civil case from disputing matters necessary
to the criminal conviction. Appley v. West, 832 F.2d 1021, 1026
(7th Cir. 1987); Otherson v. Dept. of Justice, 711 F.2d 267, 271
(D.C. Cir. 1983); Brooks v. Commissioner, 82 T.C. 413, 431
(1984), affd. without published opinion 772 F.2d 910 (9th Cir.
1985).
Page: Previous 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Next
Last modified: May 25, 2011