United States v. Coughlin
821 F. Supp. 2d 8
D.D.C.2011Background
- Coughlin, a Navy officer, applied to the September 11 Victim Compensation Fund for personal injuries and economic losses related to 9/11.
- VCF initially deemed him ineligible for medical reasons but later awarded a presumed $60,000 non-economic award with options for appeal.
- At his first trial, five mail-fraud counts were charged; three were acquitted, two hung; two additional counts (false claim, theft) and two non-mail-fraud counts proceeded.
- A mistrial occurred in 2009; the government sought retrial on hung counts, and Coughlin asserted issue preclusion under Ashe/Yeager.
- The D.C. Circuit allowed retrial on false-claim and theft counts but barred retrial on the hung mail-fraud counts; Yeager overruled prior circuit precedent.
- This court reconsidered evidentiary rulings and held that Dowling permits admission of challenged pre-May evidence for retrial, and addressed admissibility of medical, athletic, and valuation-model evidence.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether issue preclusion bars retrial on counts | Coughlin argues preclusion bars retrial on hung mail-fraud counts. | Coughlin contends Yeager governs, but the circuit allowed retrial on false-claim/theft counts and barred hung mail counts. | Retrial allowed for false-claim/theft; hung mail counts barred. |
| Whether Dowling allows admission of pre-May evidence for retrial | Dowling supports exclusion of acquitted conduct as collateral estoppel. | Dowling permits admission of relevant evidence even if related to acquitted conduct. | Dowling governs; evidence admitted if relevant and not barred by collateral estoppel. |
| Whether medical and athletic-activities evidence is admissible at retrial | This evidence is precluded by issue preclusion as it relates to pre-May conduct. | Dowling allows admissibility as it bears on a narrower post-May scheme. | Admissible; not barred by issue preclusion; remains probative to post-May scheme. |
| Whether replacement-cost checks are admissible | Pre-May submissions should prevent government from challenging pre-May checks. | Dowling permits challenge; the checks can be attacked for post-May deception. | Admissible; not barred by double jeopardy; post-May deception issues permitted. |
| Whether VCF claim file and valuation-model evidence should be admitted | Claim file and models should be admitted to show full context of award decision. | Valuation models and quasi-judicial processes are prejudicial and misleading. | Valuation models inadmissible; VCF claim file admissible only as admissible admissions or completeness evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (rejected broad Ashe/Double Jeopardy extension to exclude admissible evidence)
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (issue preclusion bars relitigation of issues necessarily decided at trial)
- Yeager v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2360 (2009) (overruled circuit precedent on issue preclusion in retrial contexts)
- Watts v. United States, 519 U.S. 148 (1997) (acquittal does not reveal factual findings; different standard of proof at sentencing)
- Dozier v. United States, 162 F.3d 120 (1998) (doctrine that acquittal does not automatically preclude later relitigation under lower standard)
- Ginyard v. United States, 511 F.3d 203 (2008) (D.C. Circuit discussion on collateral estoppel and acquitted conduct evidence)