Giddens v. State, 299 Ga. 109

In 2009 a jury convicted Matdrick Giddens of five offenses related to the November 4, 2007 gang-related shooting death of Timothy Murray, Jr., but acquitted him of the separate aggravated-assault-by-shooting count charging he shot Murray.
Evidence at trial showed gang rivalry (8 Tray Crips v. CME Rattlers), a street confrontation, multiple shooters, and that Murray was killed by a .38 bullet during the gunfight; witnesses implicated Giddens as firing a gun at the scene.
Giddens was convicted of two felony-murder counts (one tied to aggravated assault, one tied to gang activity), two criminal-street-gang counts, and possession of a firearm during the commission of a felony; he was sentenced to lengthy consecutive terms.
The trial court later granted Giddens a new trial because of instructional errors (improper gang-activity instruction and failure to charge justification), and Giddens filed a plea in bar arguing double jeopardy/collateral estoppel barred retrial because he had been acquitted of the aggravated-assault predicate.
The Georgia Supreme Court (NAHMIAS, J.) affirmed denial of the plea in bar: it held the trial evidence was legally sufficient and that collateral estoppel did not bar retrial where inconsistent acquittal and vacated convictions exist.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Giddens)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
1) Sufficiency of the evidence supporting convictions	Evidence was insufficient to support convictions; retrial would violate double jeopardy if convictions lacked sufficient proof.	Evidence (gang context, multiple shooters, eyewitness testimony, shell casings, party liability/ transferred intent) was sufficient to support convictions as a party to the crimes.	Court: Evidence was legally sufficient; convictions may be retried (Burks insufficiency bar did not apply).
2) Collateral estoppel/double jeopardy effect of an acquittal on a predicate offense	The acquittal of aggravated assault (predicate for all vacated convictions) conclusively decided he did not commit that offense and thus bars retrial on related counts.	An acquittal inconsistent with convictions that were later vacated for trial error does not preclude retrial because inconsistent jury verdicts prevent the necessary finding that the acquittal actually decided the ultimate fact.	Court: Collateral estoppel does not bar retrial; inconsistent verdicts (guilty and not guilty) undermine the assumption of rational jury findings and preclusion cannot be applied.

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (establishes collateral estoppel as component of Fifth Amendment double jeopardy protection)
Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (1978) (insufficiency of evidence on review bars retrial; distinguishes reversal for insufficiency from reversal for trial error)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1979) (legal standard for sufficiency of the evidence: view record in light most favorable to the verdict)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent verdicts from same jury undermine collateral estoppel because they prevent discerning what the jury actually decided)
Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (hung counts are not evidence of jury irrationality and should not be treated as part of the prior record for collateral-estoppel purposes)
United States v. Bravo-Fernandez, 790 F.3d 41 (1st Cir. 2015) (vacated convictions can be retried despite inconsistent acquittals; convictions are jury decisions relevant to what issues were actually decided)
Coe v. State, 293 Ga. 233 (2013) (Georgia law recognizing party liability and transferred intent for participation in multi-actor crimes)
Rodriguez v. State, 284 Ga. 803 (2009) (criminal-street-gang conviction cannot rest solely on association; defendant must personally commit the enumerated offense)