United States v. Nick Tran, 433 F. App'x 227

Tran, a pharmacist, owned Tran’s Pharmacy and filled most controlled-substance prescriptions for Family Medical Center by 2007.
The Family Medical Center accounted for 98% of Tran’s controlled-substance prescriptions and served out-of-market patients.
DEA investigated; Tran and two doctors were raided; Tran was indicted on multiple counts relating to distributing substances outside the scope of practice.
After a two-week trial in 2010, Tran was acquitted on 43 counts; jury hung on conspiracy, premises, and under-21 counts.
Tran was reindicted on related conspiracy, premises, and additional under-21 counts with new physician-related charges.
The second trial resulted in Tran’s conviction on all counts, leading to post-trial motions and this appeal challenging double jeopardy, racial-bias evidence exclusion, and recall of a government witness.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether the second trial violated double jeopardy	Tran: relitigating issues decided in first trial violates collateral estoppel	State argues a broader set of issues was decided, not just intent	No; second trial did not violate double jeopardy
Whether the district court correctly excluded evidence of racial discrimination	Tran: race-based motive of investigation relevant to credibility	District court correctly weighed probative value against prejudice under Rule 403	Yes; exclusion upheld
Whether Tran was improperly denied permission to recall a government witness	Recall necessary to address matters beyond direct examination	Trial court acted within its discretion; recall not required	No abuse of discretion; any error harmless

Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (U.S. 1970) (collateral estoppel governs double jeopardy relitigation)
Bolden v. Warden, W. Tenn. High Sec. Facility, 194 F.3d 579 (5th Cir. 1999) (two-step collateral-estoppel inquiry)
Yeager v. United States, — U.S. — (Supreme Court 2009) (nonevent of partial acquittals does not foreclose later relitigation)
De La Rosa v. Lynaugh, 817 F.2d 259 (5th Cir. 1987) (courts must view jury verdicts in light of rational grounds)
Leach, United States v., 632 F.2d 1337 (5th Cir. 1980) (jury decisions may reflect irrational reasons but collateral estoppel protects core issues)
Douthit v. Estelle, 540 F.2d 800 (5th Cir. 1976) (acts are separate in law and fact; acquittal on some counts does not bar others)
Griggs v. United States, 651 F.2d 396 (5th Cir. Unit B 1981) (knowledge or intent can vary by transaction; related counts may not be barred)
Douthit v. Estelle, 540 F.2d 800 (5th Cir. 1976) (acts are separate in law and fact; acquittal on one does not immunize others)
United States v. James, 510 F.2d 546 (5th Cir. 1975) (harmless error in recall context when probative value is minimal)
United States v. Cluck, 87 F.3d 138 (5th Cir. 1996) (standard for double jeopardy review)