Source: cases/18usc1343/us-557-110-yeager-v-us.case
Case source: https://www.neochart.com/catalog/cases/us/volume_557/0110_01/index.html
casedsl 1 case /us/557/0110-01 name Yeager v. United States cite 557 U.S. 110 (2009) # IR court field says: United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit court Supreme Court of the United States date 2009-06-18 url catalog/cases/us/volume_557/0110_01/index.html source ir/caselaw/us_557.jsonl sha1=f88e438bf4fc3d9ac5bf41a8bb68663333cce221 chars=49583 law 18usc1343 role background posture criminal; jury acquitted on conspiracy, securities fraud and four wire fraud counts and hung on insider trading / money laundering counts; on re-indictment the defendant moved to dismiss on double jeopardy (issue preclusion); denial affirmed by CA5; certiorari result not-decided element scheme : not-reached scope procedural count counts 3-6 (wire fraud; four Enron Broadband press releases in 2000) fact @3231..3376 [supports] | Counts 3 through 6 alleged that petitioner and others committed four acts of wire fraud when they issued four EBS-related press releases in 2000. fact @4661..4771 [cuts-against] | The jury acquitted petitioner on the fraud counts but failed to reach a verdict on the insider trading counts. gloss The wire fraud counts matter only as acquittals whose preclusive effect on the hung insider-trading counts is in issue. The Court holds that hung counts play no part in the Ashe issue-preclusion analysis and remands; it does not decide what the acquittals necessarily determined (lack of insider information, per CA5, or non-participation in the scheme to defraud, per the district court), and says nothing about any element of 1343. misfit The wire fraud counts ended in a jury acquittal that no court reviews: there is no way to record "general verdict of acquittal, ground unknown" for a statute. `result` is forced to not-decided although the prosecution lost those counts at trial; a lower-court `not-satisfied [proved]` block would need an element id, and which element the jury doubted is exactly what is disputed. misfit The actual holding is a Double Jeopardy / issue-preclusion rule (an acquittal's preclusive force is unaffected by hung counts). No declared id; `scope procedural` under `scheme` is only a hook, and the polarity tags on its two context lines are forced (known gap: neutral context facts must take a side). misfit The competing readings of the acquittal (district court: no knowing and willful participation in the scheme; CA5: no insider information) would map to `intent` / `scheme`, but they appear only as quotations of the courts below and are left undecided, so they are not quoted.