Thoughts on Yeager: Role of Appellate Judges, Special Verdict Forms, and the Significance of a Hung Jury

enronLast week, in Yeager v. United States, the Supreme Court resolved a longstanding tension between two aspects of Double Jeopardy law: the collateral estoppel doctrine, which precludes relitigation of issues previously found in the defendant’s favor, and the hung jury rule, which permits relitigation of charges as to which a jury cannot reach agreement.

Yeager, an Enron employee, was charged with multiple counts of fraud and insider trading.  The counts were factually linked: Yeager’s alleged fraud was that he knowingly participated in making false statements to investors regarding the performance of a new Enron project, while his alleged insider information was his knowledge that the project was not actually going so well.  At trial, the jury acquitted Yeager of fraud, but hung on insider trading.  A long line of Supreme Court cases permits retrial when the jury hangs, and the government indeed sought to take advantage of this Double Jeopardy exception by recharging Yeager with insider trading.

Yeager nonetheless presented a Double Jeopardy defense, invoking the collateral estoppel rule of Ashe v. Swenson.  In Yeager’s view, the first jury necessarily determined that the government failed to prove he knew the falsity of the statements made to investors.  If he did not know about the gap between what investors were told and the actual state of affairs, then the government’s insider trading theory would collapse.  In the government’s view, however, the first jury might have acquitted instead based on doubt about whether Yeager actually participated in making the false statements; uncertainty about what the jury actually decided in its acquittal would preclude application of Ashe.  The district court agreed with the government’s view, but the Fifth Circuit reversed.  The Supreme Court then affirmed, holding that application of the collateral estoppel doctrine was not affected by the seeming inconsistency in the jury’s treatment of the fraud and insider trading counts.

Besides its holding, three aspects of Yeager strike me as worthy of note. 

Continue ReadingThoughts on Yeager: Role of Appellate Judges, Special Verdict Forms, and the Significance of a Hung Jury

Immigration Enforcement at the Worksite

120px-us_immigration_and_customs_enforcement_arrestOur recent graduate Ben Crouse has a fascinating new paper on SSRN entitled “Worksite Raids and Immigration Norms: A ‘Sticky’ Problem.”  Drawing on Dan Kahan’s theory of social norms, Ben critiques the government’s use of high-profile worksite raids as a tactic to deter employers from hiring illegal immigrants.  Here is a taste:

The government’s high-profile raids may encourage an anti-enforcement backlash, especially when accompanied by criminal prosecutions of employers and employees alike.  In fact, high-profile raids seem perfectly tailored to amplify anti-enforcement norms.  By coupling employer enforcement measures with large-scale criminal prosecutions and removal of immigrants, the measures arouse the anxieties of the Hispanic population.  By bankrupting large employers, the measures also jeopardize the economic future of the communities that depend on them.

As an alternative to an enforcement strategy built around a small number of high-impact raids, Ben proposes reforms that would result in a larger number of enforcement actions against employers, but with less draconian results for both employers and employees.  He would make it easier for the government to sanction employers who hire illegal immigrants, but also reduce the magnitude of the sanctions in many cases, which should diminish anti-enforcement backlash.

Ben’s paper won the Silver Quill Award earlier this year for being one of the top two students comments published in volume 92 of the Marquette Law Review.

Continue ReadingImmigration Enforcement at the Worksite

Criminal Appeals Conference Podcast

I had a great time at the Criminal Appeals Conference here on Monday and Tuesday, with an impressive line-up of speakers covering a wide variety of topics, from the historical development of the harmless error doctrine to the dysfunctional handling of death penalty appeals in California to federal sentencing appeals to the failure of appellate courts to make use of the science on eyewitness identification (among many other topics).  A podcast of the Conference is now available here.

Continue ReadingCriminal Appeals Conference Podcast