This educational guide is based on the linked primary sources. It is not a Court publication, is not affiliated with the Court, and is not legal advice.
In brief
Overview
According to Samuel J. Buffone, Esq., on behalf of the Petitioner, petitioner F. Scott Yeager argues that a jury’s acquittal on any issue is final and bars the government from seeking a contrary determination on that issue.
According to Respondent, the United States contends that the government may retry hung counts that occur alongside acquittals, invoking the doctrine of continuing jeopardy.
Background and question before the Court
According to Justice Alito, the legal issue concerns the finality of jury verdicts and whether the Constitution requires that a partial verdict, such as an acquittal, precludes further prosecution on remaining counts.
What each side argues
Petitioner Position
According to Samuel J. Buffone, Esq., on behalf of the Petitioner, petitioner asserts that an acquittal resolves the issue in the defendant’s favor and is final, preventing the government from obtaining an inconsistent determination.
Petitioner further argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause should be applied with reason and a non‑hypertechnical view to protect the public policies underlying the Clause.
Respondent Position
According to Respondent, the United States argues that the government may retry hung counts that occur with acquittals, based on the doctrine of continuing jeopardy which allows the government one full and fair opportunity to convict.
The Government also maintains that collateral estoppel requires a rational jury verdict, referencing Ashe v. Swenson.
What happened at oral argument
Justice Alito asked whether the Constitution requires either federal or state law to permit a partial verdict.
According to Chief Justice Roberts, chief Justice Roberts thanked counsel.
According to Justice Ginsburg, justice Ginsburg inquired about the government’s actions on its second chance.
According to Justice Kennedy, justice Kennedy posed a hypothetical about multiple hung juries and district‑court discretion to dismiss charges.
According to Justice Stevens, justice Stevens noted that a hung jury followed by a second after an acquittal is not customary.
What the Court decided
Why it matters
Petitioner argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause should be approached with reason, rationality, and a non‑hypertechnical view to protect the public policies underlying the Clause.
Terms to know
No glossary terms are available for this guide.
Primary sources
Read the source materials on the official site or open the immutable repository copy used for this guide.
- 0c59c6ea4bf6380bf3b7-r1-a424ed6dde87ec6c.pdforal argument transcript
Guide generated September 23, 2026. Automated validation accepted this version.