Background

• Respondent Jeffrey Allen was twice tried and convicted for robbery-related murder in 2001; retried in 2008 on first-degree felony murder.
• During retrial, the court informed jurors of prior convictions and discussed the procedural history to explain the retrial context.
• The trial court instructed the jury that the only issue was whether the sequence of events amounted to first-degree felony murder, effectively defining some elements as established by law.
• Respondent objected to the instruction; the State and Respondent also objected to the court’s admonition not to speculate about procedural history or prior convictions.
• The jury found Respondent guilty of first-degree felony murder; on appeal, the Court of Special Appeals vacated the felony-murder conviction due to the instruction error and ordered a new trial.
• Maryland Supreme Court granted certiorari to decide whether offensive collateral estoppel may be used at a criminal trial to foreclose re-litigation of ultimate facts.

Issues

Key Cases Cited

• Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (collateral estoppel and double jeopardy protections in criminal cases)
• Ingenito v. State, 87 N.J. 204, 432 A.2d 912 (1981) (offensive collateral estoppel undermines jury's fact-finding role)
• Pelullo v. United States, 14 F.3d 881 (3d Cir. 1994) ( Sixth Amendment jury trial right violated by offensive collateral estoppel)
• Hernandez-Uribe v. United States, 515 F.2d 20 (8th Cir. 1975) (offensive collateral estoppel without detailed Sixth Amendment analysis)
• Simpson v. Florida, 403 U.S. 384 (1971) (Supreme Court observation on collateral estoppel and mutuality concepts)
• Odum v. State, 412 Md. 593, 989 A.2d 232 (2010) ( Maryland recognition of collateral estoppel as part of double jeopardy protections)
• Williams v. State, 394 Md. 98, 904 A.2d 534 (2006) (Sixth Amendment rights and jury trial principles in Maryland context)