United States v. McFadden, 0:17-cr-60063

Lauderhill officials seized ~3,000 lbs. of fireworks from a warehouse leased by Bruce McFadden, Jr.; ~64 lbs. were 1.3G (federally regulated explosives). Bruce McFadden, Sr. was present and received a civil citation for local ordinance violations.
A federal indictment charged Bruce Sr.: Count One (felon in possession of explosives, 18 U.S.C. § 842(i)(1))); Counts Two and Three (with Bruce Jr.: receipt/transport of explosives without license, § 842(a)(3)(A); and improper storage of explosives, § 842(j)).
Court severed Count One (felon-in-possession) for a separate trial; Counts Two and Three were tried together.
Jury acquitted on Count Two (receipt) and convicted on Count Three (improper storage). Bruce Sr. then moved to dismiss Count One on double jeopardy and judicial estoppel grounds.
The district court analyzed claim preclusion (Blockburger), issue preclusion (collateral estoppel / Ashe-Powell line), and judicial estoppel, then denied the motion, permitting the Government to retry Count One.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether Count One is the "same offense" as Counts Two/Three under Blockburger	Counts are distinct; severance preserves Count One; prosecution may proceed	Counts are multiplicative because receipt/storage overlap with possession	Denied: Count One contains the distinct element of a prior felony conviction; not the same offense
Whether the acquittal on Count Two precludes relitigation of possession (issue preclusion)	Inconsistent verdicts mean no collateral estoppel; Powell/Dunn bar preclusion	Acquittal on receipt should preclude trying possession at a later trial	Denied: jury verdicts (acquittal on receipt, conviction on storage) are irreconcilably inconsistent; Powell precludes issue preclusion
Whether severance waived Defendant’s right to invoke preclusion (effect of Currier)	Severance choice may limit preclusion arguments; but court need not reach Currier because precedent controls	Severance should not allow a second prosecution on same facts (double jeopardy)	Court did not decide Currier question; relied on Powell/Dunn to deny dismissal
Whether Government is judicially estopped from now arguing possession is distinct from receipt/storage	Government previously argued possession necessarily followed from receipt/storage at trial	Government should be barred from inconsistent positions to prejudice Defendant	Denied: judicial estoppel inapplicable; public interest in law enforcement and no record showing gamesmanship

Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (same-elements test for multiplicity)
United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (inconsistent jury verdicts defeat issue preclusion)
Dunn v. United States, 284 U.S. 390 (acquittal/conviction inconsistency cannot be attacked to claim collateral estoppel)
Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (collateral estoppel requires examining prior record to see what was necessarily decided)
Jeffers v. United States, 432 U.S. 137 (severance and separate trials—limitation on double jeopardy defense)
United States v. Smith, 532 F.3d 1125 (11th Cir. rejecting Blockburger attack on related felon-in-possession statutes)
New Hampshire v. Maine, 532 U.S. 742 (judicial estoppel principles; allowance for government position changes when public interest implicated)