United States v. Sarabia
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 21240
| 5th Cir. | 2011Background
- Sarabia was indicted for conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute >1,000 kg of marijuana (Count One), two possession counts (Counts Two and Three), and money laundering (Count Four); co-defendants included Senior and Leonel; Leonel testified.
- Jury trial in 2009: Sarabia acquitted on Count One and Count Two, but Count Three verdict was hung; the district court granted JMOL on Count Four.
- Government retried Count Three; Sarabia moved to suppress evidence tying him to driving the RV with marijuana, claiming double jeopardy issue preclusion.
- District court treated motion as a double jeopardy issue; court declined to dismiss indictment and allowed retrial on Count Three.
- Appellate issue: whether the conspiracy acquittal necessarily decided the RV-driver issue and thus barred retrial; court held issue preclusion not satisfied and retrial on Count Three permissible; also rejected the lesser-included offense argument as foreclosed by Felix.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was the RV-driver issue necessarily decided by the conspiracy acquittal? | Sarabia argues the conspiracy acquittal resolved he did not drive the RV. | Sarabia contends the jury had to have disbelieved the RV-driver link to convict on conspiracy. | Not necessarily decided; retrial permitted. |
| Is retrial on a lesser-included offense barred by double jeopardy? | Sarabia asserts possession is a lesser-included offense of conspiracy. | Government argues Felix controls and allows retry. | Felix forecloses; no double jeopardy bar. |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (issue preclusion applies in criminal cases when a fact was necessarily determined)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (hung counts are not ‘relevant’ to the record for preclusion purposes)
- Brackett v. United States, 113 F.3d 1396 (5th Cir. 1997) (determines when a fact is ‘necessarily decided’ for collateral estoppel)
- Levy v. United States, 803 F.2d 1390 (5th Cir. 1986) (method to determine what the jury necessarily decided)
- Anchondo-Sandoval v. United States, 910 F.2d 1234 (5th Cir. 1990) (possession of drugs as a necessary element in subsequent prosecution)