dowling
argued
october
decided
january
petitioner
dowling
convicted
robbing
virgin
islands
bank
wearing
ski
mask
carrying
small
pistol
relying
federal
rule
evidence
provides
evidence
crimes
wrongs
acts
may
admissible
defendant
purposes
character
evidence
government
introduced
trial
testimony
one
henry
stated
similarly
masked
armed
dowling
one
two
intruders
entered
home
two
weeks
bank
robbery
although
dowling
acquitted
charges
henry
case
government
believed
henry
description
strengthened
identification
bank
robber
testimony
linked
another
individual
thought
implicated
bank
robbery
district
permitted
introduction
testimony
twice
instructed
jury
dowling
acquittal
limited
purpose
testimony
admitted
appeals
affirmed
conviction
ruling
although
government
collaterally
estopped
acquittal
offering
henry
testimony
trial
testimony
inadmissible
federal
rules
evidence
admission
harmless
highly
probable
error
prejudice
dowling
declined
apply
stringent
standard
chapman
california
applicable
constitutional
errors
district
error
evidentiary
constitutional
dimension
held
admission
testimony
violate
component
double
jeopardy
clause
doctrine
prohibits
government
retaliating
issue
ultimate
fact
determined
valid
final
judgment
ashe
swenson
bar
circumstances
later
use
evidence
simply
relates
alleged
criminal
conduct
defendant
acquitted
prior
acquittal
determine
ultimate
issue
bank
robbery
case
second
trial
government
required
show
beyond
reasonable
doubt
dowling
man
entered
henry
house
decision
consistent
cases
held
acquittal
criminal
case
preclude
government
relitigating
issue
presented
subsequent
action
governed
lower
standard
proof
one
assortment
firearms
one
lot
emerald
cut
stones
even
lower
burden
proof
second
trial
serve
avoid
component
double
jeopardy
clause
dowling
failed
satisfy
burden
demonstrating
first
jury
determined
one
men
entered
henry
home
pp
introduction
evidence
violate
due
process
test
fundamental
fairness
especially
light
trial
judge
limiting
instructions
testimony
fundamentally
unfair
since
jury
free
assess
truthfulness
significance
testimony
since
trial
authority
exclude
potentially
prejudicial
evidence
adequately
addresses
possibility
introduction
evidence
create
risk
jury
convict
defendant
based
inferences
drawn
acquitted
conduct
since
inconsistent
verdicts
constitutionally
tolerable
since
tradition
government
may
force
person
acquitted
one
trial
defend
accusation
subsequent
proceeding
amply
protected
double
jeopardy
clause
pp
white
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
blackmun
scalia
kennedy
joined
brennan
filed
dissenting
opinion
marshall
stevens
joined
post
robert
tucker
argued
cause
filed
briefs
petitioner
stephen
nightingale
argued
cause
brief
solicitor
general
starr
assistant
attorney
general
dennis
deputy
solicitor
general
bryson
joseph
wyderko
steven
hartz
filed
brief
national
association
criminal
lawyers
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
justice
white
delivered
opinion
petitioner
trial
various
offenses
arising
bank
robbery
testimony
admitted
rule
federal
rules
evidence
relating
alleged
crime
defendant
previously
acquitted
committing
conclude
neither
double
jeopardy
clause
due
process
clause
barred
use
testimony
afternoon
july
man
wearing
ski
mask
armed
small
pistol
robbed
first
pennsylvania
bank
frederiksted
croix
virgin
islands
taking
cash
bank
teller
approximately
cash
customer
various
personal
travelers
checks
culprit
ran
bank
scurried
around
street
momentarily
commandeered
passing
taxi
van
driving
away
scene
robber
pulled
ski
mask
eyewitness
slipped
bank
robbery
taking
place
saw
maskless
man
trial
identified
petitioner
reuben
dowling
witnesses
testified
seen
dowling
driving
hijacked
taxi
van
outside
frederiksted
shortly
bank
robbery
following
arrest
dowling
charged
federal
crimes
bank
robbery
armed
robbery
various
crimes
virgin
islands
law
dowling
pleaded
guilty
charges
dowling
first
trial
ended
hung
jury
tried
convicted
third
circuit
reversed
conviction
appeal
government
virgin
islands
dowling
third
trial
dowling
convicted
counts
trial
judge
sentenced
years
imprisonment
petitioner
third
trial
government
petitioner
objection
called
woman
named
vena
henry
stand
henry
testified
man
wearing
knitted
mask
cutout
eyes
carrying
small
handgun
together
man
named
delroy
christian
entered
home
frederiksted
approximately
two
weeks
first
pennsylvania
bank
robbery
henry
testified
struggle
ensued
unmasked
intruder
identified
dowling
based
incident
dowling
charged
virgin
islands
law
burglary
attempted
robbery
assault
weapons
offenses
acquitted
trial
held
third
trial
bank
robbery
case
government
assertedly
elicited
henry
testimony
two
purposes
first
believed
henry
description
dowling
wearing
mask
carrying
gun
similar
mask
worn
gun
carried
robber
first
pennsylvania
bank
strengthened
government
identification
dowling
bank
robber
second
government
sought
link
dowling
delroy
christian
man
entered
henry
home
day
bank
robbery
dowling
borrowed
white
volkswagen
friend
dowling
trial
first
pennsylvania
bank
robbery
police
officer
testified
shortly
bank
robbery
partner
come
upon
christian
another
man
parked
white
volkswagen
front
bank
car
door
open
street
christian
backseat
officers
told
two
men
close
door
men
drove
away
north
police
followed
volkswagen
mile
shortly
thereafter
received
radio
message
bank
robbed
government
theory
christian
friend
drive
getaway
car
dowling
robbed
bank
opening
statements
government
disclosed
intention
call
henry
explained
rationale
relying
rule
federal
rules
evidence
provides
evidence
crimes
wrongs
acts
may
admissible
defendant
purposes
character
evidence
hearing
district
characterized
testimony
highly
probative
circumstantial
evidence
ruled
admissible
rule
app
henry
left
stand
district
instructed
jury
petitioner
acquitted
robbing
henry
emphasized
limited
purpose
henry
testimony
offered
reiterated
admonition
final
charge
jury
appeal
third
circuit
determined
district
admitted
henry
testimony
nevertheless
affirmed
dowling
conviction
relying
decision
keller
held
petitioner
acquittal
charges
arising
incident
henry
home
collaterally
estopped
government
offering
evidence
incident
petitioner
trial
first
pennsylvania
bank
robbery
alternatively
appeals
ruled
evidence
inadmissible
federal
rules
evidence
noted
recently
held
huddleston
rule
context
similar
act
evidence
relevant
jury
reasonably
conclude
act
occurred
defendant
actor
third
circuit
found
henry
testimony
inadmissible
rule
prior
act
sought
introduced
subject
acquittal
jury
second
jury
permitted
conclude
act
occurred
defendant
actor
also
relied
rule
federal
rules
evidence
third
circuit
opinion
danger
unfair
prejudice
outweighed
probative
value
henry
testimony
third
circuit
however
held
admission
henry
testimony
harmless
highly
probable
error
prejudice
petitioner
appeals
explicitly
declined
apply
stringent
standard
see
chapman
california
applicable
constitutional
errors
according
district
mistake
merely
evidentiary
constitutional
dimension
rejected
petitioner
objections
affirmed
conviction
dowling
claims
third
circuit
wrong
found
admission
henry
testimony
offend
constitution
therefore
declined
apply
chapman
california
supra
standard
granted
certiorari
consider
dowling
contention
henry
testimony
inadmissible
double
jeopardy
due
process
clauses
fifth
amendment
ii
claim
acquittal
case
involving
henry
barred
prosecution
present
case
issue
inadmissibility
henry
testimony
ashe
swenson
recognized
double
jeopardy
clause
incorporates
doctrine
collateral
estoppel
case
group
masked
men
robbed
six
men
playing
poker
basement
home
state
unsuccessfully
prosecuted
ashe
robbing
one
men
six
weeks
later
however
defendant
convicted
robbery
one
players
applying
doctrine
collateral
estoppel
found
implicit
double
jeopardy
clause
reversed
ashe
conviction
holding
acquittal
first
trial
precluded
state
charging
second
offense
defined
doctrine
providing
issue
ultimate
fact
determined
valid
final
judgment
issue
litigated
parties
future
lawsuit
ashe
acquittal
first
trial
foreclosed
second
trial
circumstances
case
acquittal
verdict
meant
jury
unable
conclude
beyond
reasonable
doubt
defendant
one
bandits
second
prosecution
impermissible
convicted
defendant
second
trial
second
jury
reached
directly
contrary
conclusion
see
dowling
contends
principle
prior
acquittal
precluded
government
introducing
evidence
henry
testimony
third
trial
bank
robbery
case
disagree
unlike
situation
ashe
swenson
prior
acquittal
determine
ultimate
issue
present
case
much
dowling
concedes
decline
extend
ashe
swenson
component
double
jeopardy
clause
exclude
circumstances
dowling
relevant
probative
evidence
otherwise
admissible
rules
evidence
simply
relates
alleged
criminal
conduct
defendant
acquitted
present
purposes
assume
sake
argument
dowling
acquittal
established
reasonable
doubt
whether
dowling
masked
man
entered
vena
henry
home
delroy
christian
two
weeks
first
pennsylvania
bank
robbery
introduce
evidence
point
bank
robbery
trial
government
demonstrate
dowling
man
entered
home
beyond
reasonable
doubt
government
sought
introduce
henry
testimony
rule
mentioned
earlier
huddleston
supra
held
rule
context
similar
act
evidence
relevant
jury
reasonably
conclude
act
occurred
defendant
actor
jury
might
reasonably
conclude
dowling
masked
man
entered
henry
home
even
believe
beyond
reasonable
doubt
dowling
committed
crimes
charged
first
trial
component
double
jeopardy
clause
inapposite
decision
consistent
cases
held
acquittal
criminal
case
preclude
government
relitigating
issue
presented
subsequent
action
governed
lower
standard
proof
one
assortment
firearms
example
unanimously
agreed
gun
owner
acquittal
charge
dealing
firearms
without
license
preclude
subsequent
rem
forfeiture
proceeding
firearms
even
though
forfeiture
appropriate
jury
forfeiture
proceeding
concluded
defendant
committed
underlying
offense
forfeiture
action
civil
proceeding
rejected
defendant
contention
government
estopped
relitigating
issue
defendant
alleged
wrongdoing
acquittal
prove
defendant
innocent
merely
proves
existence
reasonable
doubt
guilt
jury
verdict
criminal
action
negate
possibility
preponderance
evidence
show
defendant
engaged
unlicensed
firearms
business
clear
difference
relative
burdens
proof
criminal
civil
actions
precludes
application
doctrine
collateral
estoppel
thus
agree
government
constitutionally
barred
using
henry
testimony
bank
robbery
trial
reasons
find
merit
third
circuit
holding
doctrine
collateral
estoppel
circumstances
bars
later
use
evidence
relating
prior
conduct
government
failed
prove
violated
criminal
law
even
agree
petitioner
lower
burden
proof
second
proceeding
serve
avoid
component
double
jeopardy
clause
agree
government
challenged
evidence
nevertheless
admissible
dowling
demonstrate
acquittal
first
trial
represented
jury
determination
one
men
entered
henry
home
ashe
swenson
stated
previous
judgment
acquittal
based
general
verdict
courts
must
examine
record
prior
proceeding
taking
account
pleadings
evidence
charge
relevant
matter
conclude
whether
rational
jury
grounded
verdict
issue
defendant
seeks
foreclose
consideration
citation
omitted
courts
appeals
unanimously
placed
burden
defendant
demonstrate
issue
whose
relitigation
seeks
foreclose
actually
decided
first
proceeding
citron
ragins
gentile
baugus
mock
hewitt
lasky
cert
denied
see
reason
depart
majority
rule
case
clue
issues
earlier
case
discussion
prosecutor
dowling
attorney
district
judge
took
place
district
hearing
admission
henry
testimony
rule
app
arguing
admission
henry
testimony
dowling
lawyer
pointed
dowling
acquitted
breaking
henry
home
trial
judge
also
presided
dowling
first
trial
recalled
dowling
acquitted
issue
identification
prosecutor
contended
dowling
disputed
identity
rather
claimed
robbery
taken
place
christian
allegedly
merely
came
retrieve
money
individual
house
ibid
made
statement
dowling
presence
house
seriously
contested
case
stated
general
defense
dowling
think
took
stand
ibid
number
possible
explanations
jury
acquittal
verdict
dowling
first
trial
record
stands
nothing
persuasively
indicates
question
identity
issue
determined
dowling
favor
prior
trial
oral
argument
dowling
conceded
much
tr
oral
arg
result
even
apply
double
jeopardy
clause
case
conclude
petitioner
failed
satisfy
burden
demonstrating
first
jury
concluded
one
intruders
henry
home
iii
besides
arguing
introduction
henry
testimony
violated
double
jeopardy
clause
petitioner
also
contends
introduction
evidence
unconstitutional
failed
due
process
test
fundamental
fairness
recognize
introduction
evidence
circumstances
like
involved
potential
prejudice
jury
unfairly
force
defendant
spend
time
money
relitigating
matters
considered
first
trial
question
however
whether
acceptable
deal
potential
abuse
nonconstitutional
sources
like
federal
rules
evidence
whether
introduction
type
evidence
extremely
unfair
admission
violates
fundamental
conceptions
justice
lovasco
beyond
specific
guarantees
enumerated
bill
rights
due
process
clause
limited
operation
therefore
defined
category
infractions
violate
fundamental
fairness
narrowly
observed
lovasco
supra
judges
free
defining
due
process
impose
law
enforcement
officials
personal
private
notions
fairness
disregard
limits
bind
judges
judicial
function
rochin
california
determine
whether
action
complained
violates
fundamental
conceptions
justice
lie
base
civil
political
institutions
mooney
holohan
define
community
sense
fair
play
decency
rochin
california
supra
petitioner
lists
four
reasons
according
admission
henry
testimony
fundamentally
unfair
first
petitioner
suggests
evidence
relating
acquitted
conduct
inherently
unreliable
disagree
jury
case
example
remained
free
assess
truthfulness
significance
henry
testimony
petitioner
opportunity
refute
second
dowling
contends
use
type
evidence
creates
constitutionally
unacceptable
risk
jury
convict
defendant
basis
inferences
drawn
acquitted
conduct
believe
trial
authority
exclude
potentially
prejudicial
evidence
adequately
addresses
possibility
third
petitioner
claims
exclusion
acquitted
conduct
evidence
furthers
desirable
goal
consistent
jury
verdicts
however
find
inconsistency
dowling
conviction
first
pennsylvania
bank
robbery
acquittal
charge
robbing
henry
obvious
reason
jury
verdict
second
trial
entail
judgment
respect
offenses
charged
first
event
inconsistent
verdicts
constitutionally
tolerable
see
standefer
fourth
petitioner
argues
introduction
henry
testimony
case
contravenes
tradition
government
may
force
person
acquitted
one
trial
defend
accusation
subsequent
proceeding
acknowledge
tradition
find
amply
protected
double
jeopardy
clause
decline
use
due
process
clause
device
extending
double
jeopardy
protection
cases
otherwise
extend
iv
conclude
admission
henry
testimony
constitutional
appeals
therefore
applied
correct
standard
affirm
judgment
appeals
ordered
footnotes
clear
record
finding
formed
basis
jury
verdict
see
discussion
infra
part
dowling
notes
party
introducing
evidence
carries
burden
demonstrating
evidence
relevance
argues
duty
context
component
double
jeopardy
clause
requires
government
establish
previous
acquittal
resolve
question
issue
second
trial
disagree
relevancy
threshold
inquiry
burden
introducing
party
establish
relevancy
also
require
introducing
party
anticipate
rebut
possible
objections
offered
evidence
dowling
also
suggests
place
burden
government
instance
opposed
situation
ashe
swenson
example
seek
terminate
prosecution
merely
hopes
exclude
evidence
distinction
without
difference
anything
equities
weigh
direction
case
dowling
faces
risk
introduction
prejudicial
evidence
whereas
ashe
swenson
defendant
threatened
illegitimate
conviction
third
circuit
noted
found
henry
testimony
inadmissible
rule
rule
urges
error
affirming
need
pass
validity
appeals
judgment
respect
justice
brennan
justice
marshall
justice
stevens
join
dissenting
petitioner
trial
bank
robbery
prosecutor
introduced
testimony
vena
henry
petitioner
attempted
rob
home
approximately
two
weeks
bank
robbery
petitioner
however
already
tried
connection
incident
acquitted
burglary
attempted
robbery
assault
weapons
offenses
introduction
testimony
effectively
forced
petitioner
defend
charges
already
acquitted
doctrine
criminal
collateral
estoppel
grounded
double
jeopardy
clause
prohibited
government
introducing
testimony
reverse
judgment
appeals
third
circuit
remand
consideration
whether
admission
testimony
harmless
error
standard
enunciated
chapman
california
therefore
respectfully
dissent
law
attaches
particular
significance
acquittal
difrancesco
quoting
scott
core
protection
double
jeopardy
clause
attaches
acquittal
prohibits
retrial
offense
acquittal
martin
linen
supply
two
offenses
considered
offense
double
jeopardy
purposes
unless
offense
requires
proof
fact
blockburger
acquittal
greater
lesser
included
offense
example
bars
prosecution
offense
brown
ohio
protection
applies
even
acquittal
based
egregiously
erroneous
foundation
fong
foo
per
curiam
sanabria
concerns
clearly
implicated
defendant
retried
offense
acquittal
ashe
swenson
however
significantly
expanded
protection
defendant
constitutionally
entitled
acquittal
holding
double
jeopardy
clause
incorporates
doctrine
criminal
collateral
estoppel
doctrine
collateral
estoppel
means
simply
issue
ultimate
fact
determined
valid
final
judgment
issue
litigated
parties
future
lawsuit
criminal
case
collateral
estoppel
prohibits
government
relitigating
ultimate
facts
resolved
defendant
favor
prior
acquittal
thus
addition
protected
retrial
offense
defendant
protected
prosecution
offense
requires
proof
fact
found
favor
prior
proceeding
question
case
whether
criminal
doctrine
apply
government
seeks
introduce
subsequent
trial
evidence
relating
another
criminal
offense
defendant
acquitted
jury
consider
facts
relating
another
criminal
offense
proof
element
presently
charged
offense
jury
must
conclude
preponderance
evidence
act
occurred
defendant
actor
huddleston
extent
prior
acquittal
offense
determined
either
factual
issues
defendant
favor
introduction
evidence
imposes
defendant
burden
relitigating
facts
thereby
increases
likelihood
erroneous
conviction
charged
offense
thus
extend
doctrine
preclude
government
introducing
evidence
relies
facts
previously
determined
defendant
favor
acquittal
refuses
apply
doctrine
case
two
reasons
first
asserts
petitioner
failed
carry
burden
proving
issue
sought
foreclose
relitigation
decided
favor
first
acquittal
importantly
refuses
apply
doctrine
facts
underlying
prior
acquittal
used
evidence
another
offense
conclusions
inconsistent
purposes
rule
first
asserts
petitioner
prove
issue
sought
foreclose
relitigation
actually
decided
first
proceeding
ante
summary
conclusion
defendant
bear
burden
proof
invoking
doctrine
fails
serve
purposes
doctrine
double
jeopardy
clause
general
since
doctrine
serves
protect
defendants
governmental
overreaching
government
bear
burden
proving
issue
seeks
relitigate
decided
defendant
favor
prior
acquittal
noted
ashe
criminal
verdicts
general
verdicts
usually
difficult
determine
precise
route
jury
reasoning
basis
verdict
rests
see
putting
burden
defendant
prove
issues
actually
decided
essentially
denies
protection
collateral
estoppel
defendants
affirmatively
contest
one
issue
put
government
burden
proof
respect
elements
offense
result
inconsistent
admonition
ashe
excessively
technical
approach
collateral
estoppel
course
simply
amount
rejection
rule
collateral
estoppel
criminal
proceedings
least
every
case
first
judgment
based
upon
general
verdict
acquittal
ibid
indeed
forcing
defendants
choose
forgoing
protections
double
jeopardy
clause
abandoning
defense
general
denial
raises
grave
due
process
concerns
even
assuming
petitioner
properly
required
bear
burden
proof
conclude
petitioner
carried
case
vena
henry
testified
petitioner
entered
home
wearing
mask
carrying
gun
struggle
pulled
mask
ran
away
every
reason
believe
jury
rested
verdict
belief
petitioner
present
henry
home
petitioner
charged
wide
array
offenses
relating
henry
incident
conclusion
rationally
conceivable
example
jury
acquitted
petitioner
attempted
robbery
lacked
requisite
intent
still
found
guilty
weapons
offense
neither
comments
trial
judge
trial
petitioner
seriously
contested
issue
identity
henry
trial
stated
general
defense
app
prosecutor
statement
case
petitioner
codefendant
henry
trial
admitted
house
provides
sufficient
basis
conclude
issue
identity
resolved
petitioner
favor
acquittal
thus
collateral
estoppel
applies
evidentiary
use
facts
government
allowed
introduce
henry
testimony
holds
however
collateral
estoppel
apply
facts
previously
found
defendant
favor
later
introduced
evidence
second
offense
excepts
normal
rule
criminal
collateral
estoppel
situations
jury
consider
facts
lower
standard
proof
second
proceeding
first
trial
endorses
exception
without
consideration
purposes
underlying
doctrine
surprising
holding
reflects
unrealistic
view
risks
burdens
imposed
defendant
facts
relating
prior
offense
acquitted
introduced
subsequent
criminal
proceeding
notes
held
acquittal
criminal
case
bar
subsequent
civil
forfeiture
actions
transaction
acquittal
merely
proves
existence
reasonable
doubt
defendant
guilt
one
assortment
firearms
see
also
one
lot
emerald
cut
stones
helvering
mitchell
however
forfeiture
cases
involved
civil
remedial
measures
rather
criminal
punishment
firearms
supra
helvering
supra
never
applied
reasoning
successive
criminal
prosecution
government
seeks
punish
defendant
hinges
punishment
least
part
criminal
act
defendant
acquitted
indeed
ashe
indicated
contrary
much
late
suggest
collateral
estoppel
fully
applicable
former
judgment
criminal
case
judgment
may
reflect
belief
government
met
higher
burden
proof
exacted
cases
government
evidence
whole
quoting
kramer
always
recognized
distinction
governmental
action
intended
punish
see
halper
double
jeopardy
clause
implicated
civil
fine
punitive
salerno
upholding
bail
reform
act
regulatory
rather
punitive
measure
thus
consistent
hold
doctrine
applies
criminal
context
civil
government
seeks
punish
defendant
concern
fairness
much
acute
whenever
defendant
forced
relitigate
facts
underlying
prior
offense
acquitted
risk
jury
erroneously
decide
guilty
offense
risk
heightened
jury
required
conclude
defendant
committed
prior
offense
preponderance
evidence
cf
winship
standard
prime
instrument
reducing
risk
convictions
resting
factual
error
fact
prior
offense
used
evidence
presently
charged
offense
raises
concerns
reliability
jury
ultimate
conclusion
defendant
committed
presently
charged
offense
concerns
stem
large
part
inherent
danger
evidence
relating
extrinsic
criminal
offense
first
ne
dangers
inherent
admission
extrinsic
offense
evidence
jury
may
convict
defendant
offense
charged
extrinsic
offense
danger
particularly
great
extrinsic
activity
subject
conviction
jury
may
feel
defendant
punished
activity
even
guilty
offense
charged
beechum
en
banc
citations
omitted
alternatively
danger
evidence
may
lead
jury
conclude
committed
crime
type
charged
defendant
likely
repeat
ibid
thus
fact
defendant
forced
relitigate
participation
prior
criminal
offense
low
standard
proof
combined
inherently
prejudicial
nature
evidence
increases
risk
jury
erroneously
convict
defendant
presently
charged
offense
response
defendant
free
introduce
evidence
rebut
contention
committed
prior
offense
response
course
underscores
flaw
reasoning
introduction
type
evidence
requires
defendant
mount
second
defense
offense
acquitted
facts
relating
prior
offense
used
evidence
another
crime
reduce
burden
defendant
still
required
defend
prior
charges
moreover
significance
jury
may
place
evidence
prior
criminal
offense
presenting
defense
offense
may
burdensome
defending
presently
charged
offense
finally
since
lower
standard
proof
makes
easier
jury
conclude
defendant
committed
prior
offense
defendant
essentially
forced
present
affirmative
evidence
rebut
contention
committed
offense
today
adds
powerful
new
weapon
government
arsenal
ability
relitigate
facts
relating
offense
defendant
acquitted
benefits
government
many
situations
defendant
able
present
second
defense
passage
time
expense
factor
indeed
discernible
limit
rule
defendant
forced
relitigate
facts
trial
trial
moreover
reasoning
appears
extend
even
facts
case
seems
allow
prosecutor
rely
prior
criminal
offense
despite
acquittal
evidence
trial
offense
part
transaction
prior
offense
example
prosecutor
introduce
facts
relating
substantive
offense
evidence
trial
conspiracy
even
though
defendant
acquitted
substantive
offense
cf
ashe
question
whether
collateral
estoppel
constitutional
requirement
little
concern
modern
statutes
gave
prosecutors
ability
spin
startingly
numerous
series
offenses
single
alleged
criminal
transaction
indeed
reasoning
apply
even
broadly
justify
introduction
evidence
prior
offense
defendant
acquitted
order
enhance
defendant
sentence
sentencing
scheme
requires
proof
less
reasonable
doubt
see
mcmillan
pennsylvania
upholding
constitutionality
sentencing
scheme
requiring
proof
additional
facts
preponderance
evidence
ignoring
principles
upon
doctrine
based
possible
tip
scales
far
prosecution
favor
ii
holding
today
deprives
acquitted
defendant
rightful
end
blight
suspicious
aura
surround
accusation
guilty
specific
crime
wingate
wainwright
holding
based
hypertechnical
view
acquittal
reflects
naive
view
defendant
burden
criminal
trial
respectfully
dissent
cases
often
refer
situation
collateral
estoppel
respect
evidentiary
fact
order
distinguish
situation
present
ashe
swenson
see
keller
ashe
prior
acquittal
determined
facts
necessary
element
second
offense
since
issue
identity
determined
trial
robbery
one
victim
collateral
estoppel
precluded
prosecution
robbery
second
victim
situation
contrast
previously
litigated
facts
introduced
evidence
element
another
offense
fact
case
acquittal
alone
sufficient
estop
government
introducing
henry
evidence
henry
testimony
introduced
direct
proof
circumstantial
evidence
petitioner
also
masked
bank
robber
mask
worn
intruder
henry
home
mask
worn
bank
robber
app
thus
jury
invited
infer
fact
petitioner
allegedly
worn
different
mask
carried
gun
masked
bank
robber
jury
instructed
consider
testimony
extent
helps
determining
identity
person
committed
bank
robbery
dowling
found
guilty
crime
robbery
connection
nothing
instructions
ensured
jury
consider
fact
petitioner
worn
mask
carried
gun
prior
attempted
robbery
evidence
petitioner
masked
bank
robber
since
acquittal
least
determined
petitioner
committed
attempted
robbery
acquittal
enough
preclude
government
asking
jury
draw
inference
government
cites
standefer
support
argument
doctrine
collateral
estoppel
apply
evidentiary
use
facts
standefer
held
defendant
invoke
acquittal
principal
bar
prosecution
accomplice
although
noted
collateral
estoppel
applied
sparingly
government
id
defendant
standefer
yet
tried
thus
concerns
protect
defendant
relitigation
implicated
concerns
implicated
outweigh
need
apply
collateral
estoppel
cautiously
government
higher
standard
employed
criminal
context
ensure
accuracy
convictions
thereby
protect
defendants
permit
introduction
evidence
crimes
defendant
acquitted
winship
definition
government
fails
prove
defendant
guilty
beyond
reasonable
doubt
defendant
considered
legally
innocent
unlike
majority
believe
least
respect
subsequent
criminal
prosecutions
acquitted
defendant
treated
innocent
interests
fairness
finality
made
answer
alleged
crime
state
wakefield
ironic
petitioner
better
second
trial
represented
counsel
first
trial
convicted
uncounselled
convictions
may
used
capacity
subsequent
trials
see
loper
beto
impeachment
tucker
sentencing
enhancement
burgett
texas
substantive
evidence
fact
trial
judge
may
instruct
jury
defendant
acquitted
sufficiently
protect
defendant
need
present
evidence
guarantee
jury
give
weight
acquittal
jury
may
disregard
even
conclude
first
jury
made
mistake