White Collar Crime Prof Blog

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Chronicle of Higher Education, Former Professor Gets 4 Years for Allowing Unauthorized Access to Sensitive Technology

Laura Sullivan, NPR, Madoff Likely Won't Be Serving Time in 'Club Fed'

David Scheer, Bloomberg.com, SEC Names Ex-Prosecutor Reisner Deputy of Enforcement

DOJ Press Release, Kansas Woman Pleads Guilty to Making False Statement to FBI in E-Rate Fraud Investigation

ACFE Press Release,$65 Billion Stolen by Madoff? Not Hardly

Daniel Wise, law.com, NYLJ, Judge Names Receiver in Madoff Feeder Fund Suit

(esp)

My Space Related Case - No Sentencing Today

The Lori Drew case was scheduled for a hearing today and the question was whether she would be sentenced or perhaps the case dismissed.  According to press reports it looks like it may be the latter, although everyone is calling it a "tentative" ruling pending the court's written order.   A key issue in the case was whether the computer statute that was used was appropriate for these alleged acts.  (see here) The State where the alleged act took place - Missouri - did not have a cyberbullying crime at that time, although one has since been passed. Federal prosecutors in California brought this case, a case with a keystroke in Missouri, premised upon the contractual agreement one clicks with MySpace. They also used the conspiracy statute as it allows for a wide jurisdictional base, although Drew was not convicted of conspiracy. If the final decision is to dismiss the case, it would not be surprising.

See Alexandra Zavis, LATimes, Judge tentatively dismisses case in MySpace hoax that led to teenage girl's suicide  ; Gina Keating, Reuters,  MySpace suicide conviction tentatively dismissed; Linda Deutsch, AP, Judge tentatively acquits woman in MySpace case

(esp)

Beazer Homes Deferred Prosecution Agreement

Beazer Homes USA, Inc. entered into a deferred prosecution agreement with the US Attorney's Office for the Western District of North Carolina.  The company issued the following release for investors (see here). The agreement calls for an immediate payment of 10 million dollars in restitution (actually 7.5 million since it already paid 2.5 to North Carolina victims), with additional funds down the road. Additional payments to the FHA include an immediate payment of 4 million. 

It is good to see that this agreement does not explicitly include a waiver of attorney client privilege.   But there are two provisions in this agreement that cause concern. First is a statement that says that "BEAZER expressly agrees that it shall not, through its present or future attorneys, board of directors, officers, or any other person authorized to speak for the company, make any public statement, in litigation or otherwise, contradicting BEAZER'S acceptance of responsibility set forth above or the factual allegations in the criminal information filed in conjunction with this Agreement, except insofar as BEAZER contests the applicability of the factual allegations in the criminal information and/or this Agreement to a specific private civil litigant or class of litigants...." It later states that "[t]he decision of whether any public statement by any such person contradicting a fact contained in the criminal information will be imputed to BEAZER for the purpose of determining whether BEAZER has breached this Agreement shall be in the sole discretion of the United States." (emphasis added)

A second concern with this agreement also pertains to who has the authority to determine a breach of the agreement.  The Agreement states "BEAZER agrees that the decision whether conduct and/or statements of any individual will be imputed to BEAZER for the purpose of determining whether BEAZER has knowingly, intentionally and materially violated any provision of this Agreement shall be in the sole discretion of the United States."  (emphasis added) And later the same issue, "It is further agreed that in the event that the United States, in its sole discretion, determines that BEAZER has materially breached or violated any provision of this Agreement...." (emphasis added).  

It's good to see DOJ no longer seeking a waiver of attorney-client privilege, but they also need to pay closer attention to contracts and provide a fairer agreement if there is a breach by a party to the agreement.  A neutral party, as opposed to one of the parties to the agreement, should be making this call. See Candace Zierdt & Ellen S Podgor, Corporate Deferred Prosecutions Through the Looking Glass of Contract Policing

For discussion of the deferred prosecution agreement, see also Harry R. Weber, Houston Chronicle (AP), Charges filed against Beazer; Settlement reached ; Reuters, Beazer Homes agrees to settle mortgage fraud case; Wallace Witkowski, Marketwatch WSJ,  Beazer settles with North Carolina, feds.

Beazer Settlement - Download BEAZER SETTLEMENT

Bill of Information - Download Bill of Info

Deferred Prosecution Agreement - Download Deferred Prosecution

(esp)

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Doug Berman, Sentencing Law & Policy Blog,  Another stiff sentence for a Ponzi schemer ; Barbara Boyer, philly.com, N.J. con man gets 30 years for Ponzi scheme

James Barron, NYTimes, Assemblyman Steps Down and Admits Guilt in Scheme

Mike Scarcella, BLT Blog, [Earl] Silbert Named President of Council for Court Excellence

DOJ Press Release, Former Executive of Philadelphia Company Pleads Guilty to Paying Bribes to Vietnamese Officials

Kevin McCoy, USA Today, Appeal of Madoff's 150-year sentence wouldn't matter

Martha Neil, ABA Jrl Law News Now, Ex-Latham Practice Head Gets 15 Months in Client Expense Fraud Case

Zachery Kouwe, NYTimes, S.E.C. Previews Its Madoff Report

DOJ Press Release,Former Virginia Marine Products Company Executive Pleads Guilty to Bid Rigging on Contracts With the U.S. Navy and Others

Amanda Bronstad, NLJ, The anatomy of an acquittal in the W.R. Grace asbestos trial

Harry Weber, Breaking News 24/7, SEC Charges former Beazer Homes Chief Accounting Officer With Fraud

DOJ Press Release, Retired Military Official Pleads Guilty to Bribery and Conspiracy Related to Defense Contracts in Afghanistan

Stacy-Marie Ishmael & Brooke Masters, Financial Times, Stanford CFO intends to admit fraud charges

DOJ Press Release, Jury Convicts Los Angeles Physician Assistant for Stealing Doctor’s Identity and Defrauding Medicare in $7.7 Million Scheme

(esp)

Stanford Bail Shortlived

Blogged here was the jumpsuit walk of R. Allen Stanford following the ordering of bail by a magistrate judge.  But the bond was short-lived as the federal judge overseeing the case revoked his bail. A key test for securing bail pending trial is whether the accused will flee. The court, concerned with the possibility of Stanford fleeing, decided he should stay incarcerated.  But even with this decision, I have to question the jumpsuit walk.  Our system is premised on innocence until proved guilty.  Parading an innocent person in front of cameras implicates that individual prior to any finding of guilt. See Juan Lozano, Huffington Post, Stanford's Bail Revoked By Judge; Clifford Krauss, NYTimes, Judge Revokes Bail for Billionaire Accused of Fraud.

(esp)

The Madoff Forfeiture

Previously posted here was the court's forfeiture order in the Madoff case. Guest blogging on the Madoff forfeiture is Attorney Peter Goldberger who writes:

The criminal forfeiture order, negotiated between the defendant and the government w/o input from the victims as guaranteed by the CVRA (see 18 USC 3664(d) and FedRCrimP 32(i)(4)(B)), ensures Mrs. Madoff a couple of million to live on for the rest of her lonely life.  It takes all of the defendant's assets and makes them property of the United States. (It also disregards the binding Santos definition of "proceeds," but never mind that.)  By leaving the defendant with nothing, it prevents him from making restitution to any victim (although he can and will be ordered to make restitution, he won't have a penny other than prison earnings with which to comply).  While a victim can apply to the Attorney General for a partial "remission" of the forfeiture (see 21 USC 853(i)(1)(incorporated by reference into other forfeiture laws), there are no governing standards, no due process, and no judicial supervision -- it is 100% in the discretion of the DOJ.  Section 3572(b) of title 18, however, prohibits the judge from ordering any "financial penalty" (which would include criminal forfeiture) if doing so would impair the ability of the defendant to pay restitution.  On that basis, I believe the forfeiture order in Madoff's case is illegal.  I wonder if any victim will take that position and file a mandamus under the CVRA ((3771(d)(3) & FedRCrimP. 60 (b)(5)(B)) against it?

(pg)

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

TBO.com (AP), 10 others to be charged in Madoff probe

Sheri Qualters, NLJ, Circuits split on sentencing for financial fraud -At issue is whether people who are reimbursed for financial losses from criminal schemes should be counted as victims

DOJ Press Release, Former Social Worker Sentenced for Role in Scheme to Defraud Department of Veterans Affairs and Obstructing Justice (3 years)

(esp)

Cert Granted in Another 1346 Mail Fraud Case

Earlier this term, the Supreme Court granted certiorari in the Conrad Black case, a case premised upon the honest services intangible rights doctrine of the mail fraud statute (see here).  Now a second case has cert granted - Weyhrauch v. United States - that also presents a question regarding section 1346. The question presented is: "Whether, to convict a state official for depriving the public of its right to the defendant's honest services through the non-disclosure of material information, in violation of the mail-fraud statute (18 U.S.C. Sec. 1341 and 1346), the government must prove that the defendant violated a disclosure duty imposed by state law." (see here).  For the Petition for Certioriari, Brief in Opposition, and Petitioner's Reply, see Scotus Blog here.

Weyhrauch, a lawyer and former member of the Alaska House of Representatives was accused of mail fraud for his role with an oil field services company. The government proposed to introduce evidence that went to ethics violations and conflicts of interest in Weyhrauch's alleged conduct.  The government argued "that the evidence should nonetheless be admitted because proof that a legislator knowingly concealed a conflict of interest may be used to support an honest services fraud conviction even if state law does not require disclosure of the conflict of interest." The district court granted the accused's motion, excluding the evidence.  The government appealed to the Ninth Circuit, that after discussing the circuit split reversed stating that it "decline[d] to adopt the state law limiting principle."  The court held that it could not "find any basis in the text of legislative history of section 1346 revealing that Congress intended to condition the meaning of 'honest services' on state law."  The petitioner - defendant, is now asking the Supreme Court to review this ruling.

This case presents another opportunity for Justice Scalia to use his words from the denial of cert in the Sorich case, where he stated that the "28 words" in the statute had "been invoked to impose criminal penalties upon a staggeringly broad swath of behaviour, including misconduct not only by public officials and employees but also by private employees and corporate fiduciaries."  

He stated that "[w]ithout some coherence limiting principle to define what 'the intangible right to honest services" is, whence it derives, and how it is violated, this expansive phrase invites abuse by headline-grabbing prosecutors in pursuit of local officials, state legislators, and corporate CEOs who engage in any manner of unappealing or ethically questionable conduct." Justice Scalia concludes his dissent in Sorich by stating that "it seems to me quite irresponsible to let the current chaos prevail." (see here)

(esp) 

Madoff's Sentence - "Symbolic" of What?

Clearly Madoff's sentence is "symbolic."  It symbolizes an incredibly long sentence being given to a white collar offender, something that has happened in the past but is not common, and hardly ever to this extent for a white collar individual.  (see here) 

But should a sentence be for a "symbolic" purpose? Clearly Madoff cannot serve 150 years in prison.  And there are many others in the system who have likewise received sentences beyond their lifetimes - usually, however, we see such cases in the drug or violent crime realms. 

But one wonders if sentences that exceed a person's lifetime are realistic and add credibility to our sentencing system.  When the system allows and sometimes encourages a judge to issue a sentence that can never be served, does it defeat the validity of the sentencing structure?  General deterrence is a valid punishment theory and sending a message to the community that criminal conduct will not be tolerated is likewise admirable.  Some may see denunciation as an important aspect of correcting future criminal conduct.   And clearly 18 USC 3553 provides that the sentence should "reflect the seriousness of the offense, to promote respect for the law, and to provide just punishment for the offense." But all that said, should an individual - no matter how guilty and how extraordinarily evil - be given a sentence that is beyond the person's lifetime for "symbolic" purposes? 

I keep thinking about the initial purposes of the sentencing guidelines where it states that " [t]he Act's basic objective was to enhance the ability of the criminal justice system to combat crime through an effective, fair sentencing system.  To achieve this end, Congress first sought honesty in sentencing." (emphasis added). It states later, "[h]onesty is easy to achieve: the abolition of parole makes the sentence imposed by the court the sentence the offender will serve less approximately fifteen percent for good behavior."  But in the back of my mind I keep wondering if Congress really achieves "honesty in sentencing" when it allows an individual to receive a sentence that exceeds the person's lifetime.

See Mike Pesca, NPR, Judge Sentences Madoff to 150 Years;  Andrew Cohen, Courtwatch CBS News Blog, 150-Year Madoff Sentence Is "Symbolic"

(esp)

Commentary on Madoff Sentence

150 years (see here) - more than a lifetime is the sentence given to Bernie Madoff by Hon. Denny Chin.  It was clear that the 12 years requested by defense counsel would never be a reality, and it was also clear that Madoff would likely spend the rest of his life in prison. But a sentence of 150 years sends a forceful message that white collar offenders can and will be punished harshly for fraud. Some interesting points about the sentencing -

• The NYTimes reports (here) that "Judge Chin pointed out that no friends, family or other supporters had submitted any letters on Mr. Madoff's behalf, attesting to the strength of his character or good deeds he had done." - Some white collar cases will have numerous letters showing the good qualities, charity work, and other deeds of the offender.  But the usual letter-writers were the victims in this case.  It is therefore not surprising that there would be none to present to the court.
• Madoff was given no credit for his remorse and no credit for pleading. He saved the taxpayers the cost of a trial, and clearly spared everyone the pain and time of making the government prove the case against him. The penalty of going to trial was imposed in this case, despite the fact that a trial did not happen.
• Giving Madoff the maximum sentence is not a punishment based upon rehabilitation or specific deterrence. Being 71 years  and being given a prison sentence of 150 years leaves little chance that he will ever exit prison a free man.  This is clearly a punishment grounded in retribution. From a general deterrence standpoint, a much lesser punishment could have been used for sending the message that this conduct will not be tolerated. 
• Madoff was different from the usual white collar offender (see here), and that needed to be factored into the sentence, as Judge Chin did. 
• But the remaining question still stands - how could this fraud have gone on unnoticed for so long, and why did it take government authorities 20 years to finally do something about it.

(esp)

Madoff - Sentenced to More Than A Lifetime

The Hon. Denny Chin gave a sentence of 150 years to Bernie Madoff, a number a far cry from the 12 years asked for by defense counsel. (see here) 

Jack Healy, NYTimes, Madoff Sentenced to 150 Years in Prison for Ponzi Scheme

Chad Bray, WSJ, Madoff Sentenced to 150 Years

Washington Post, Madoff Sentenced To Maximum 150 Years In Jail

Aaron Smith, CNN,Madoff sentenced to 150 years -Federal judge gives maximum sentence to Ponzi mastermind following his apology and victims' request for life sentence.

Doug Berman, Sentencing Law & Policy Blog, Madoff gets sentenced to max of 150 years in federal prison!

Commentary to follow.

(esp)

Addendum, Doug Berman,A new white-collar benchmark: the main reason the number 150 matters in Madoff

Madoff- Preliminary Order on Forfeiture

The Preliminary Order on Forfeiture has been issued.  See here.  Commentary to follow. 

(esp)

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Andrea Chang, LATimes, 3 acquitted in Ralphs lockout case -A federal jury finds the supermarket executives not guilty in a scheme to rehire locked-out workers using false Social Security numbers. The chain and other managers have previously pleaded guilty. (w/ hats off to Attorney Evan A. Jenness for her successful representation)

Jim Schaefer, Ben Schmitt, Tammy Stables Battaglia & Cassandra Spratling, Detroit Free Press, [Detroit City Councilwoman Monica] Conyers [Pleads] Guilty in Bribery Case (yes - she is the wife of Rep. Conyers)

David Kocieniewski, NYTimes,  In Testy Exchange in Congress, Christie Defends His Record as a Prosecutor

Mike Scarcella, BLT Blog, DOJ Announces Commitment to Public Defenders, Legal Aid

DOJ, June 22-  Three Defendants Enter Pleas in BETONSPORTS PLC case (here)

Doug Berman, Sentencing Blog, Feds seeking the max for Bernie Madoff; Joanna Chung & Brooke Masters, Financial Times, Madoff sentence to determine more than just jail time 

William L. Watts, Marketwatch WSJ, U.S. may drop tax case against UBS: report

Martha Brannigan, Miami Herald,Boca Raton accountant pleads guilty in UBS tax fraud case -In the latest sign that Swiss banking secrecy isn't so secret anymore, a wealthy Boca Raton-based UBS client pleaded guilty to filing a false tax return

Press Release,The Society of Corporate Compliance Ethics Introduces Certified Compliance and Ethics Professional-Fellow (CCEP-Fellow) Advanced Certification for Compliance and Ethics Professionals (see here)

DOJ Press Release, Former Contracting Officer Pleads Guilty to Filing False Tax Returns

Richard Scrushy files: Motion to Recuse ( Download Motion to Recuse  ) and Motion for New Trial Based on Newly Discovered Evidence (Download Motion_for_a_New_Trial )

University Business (Boston Globe), Grand Jury Indicts 65 in Arizona Fraud Scheme  (w/ a hat tip to Dean Darby Dickerson)

Carrie Johnson, Washington Post, 53 Indicted in Medicare Fraud Sting

(esp)

Wesley Snipes Gets Oral Argument in the 11th Circuit

Actor Wesley Snipes has been granted oral argument in the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals. Snipes was convicted of misdemeanor tax counts and found not guilty of other conspiracy and tax fraud counts following a jury trial (see here). The oral argument is scheduled for November 2009.  Last year (September - September reporting period) less than 16% of  all Eleventh Circuit criminal appeals were disposed of on the merits following oral argument (1258 total criminal cases, 1059 terminated after submission on the briefs, and 199 terminated after oral argument see here).  Representing Snipes are Philadelphia area Attorney Peter Goldberger, former president of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers Carmen Hernandez, Daniel Meachum (of Atlanta), and Linda Moreno (of Tampa). For a discussion of one of the issues likely to be raised on appeal, see here. 

(esp) 

Stanford Gets Bail, But After Jumpsuit Walk

Who gets bail and who remains in jail has been interesting to watch. The question is not limited to one stage of the criminal process, as the issue arises 1) upon indictment and arrest, 2) after a guilty finding at trial, 3) after sentencing, and 4) after an initial appellate ruling.  

The first stage - upon indictment and arrest - is often one of the easier ones for obtaining release as there is no conviction and being charged with a white collar crime, there is little chance of the accused using violence to harm others. In this stage Madoff, Snipes, Lay, and most other white collar individuals were released pending their trial.   So it is not surprising to see that R. Allen Stanford is being given bail pending his trial. 

So knowing the likelihood of bail, is it really proper for the government to parade Stanford in a jumpsuit in front of the media. Check out the picture with this article:Mauricio Guerrero, NYTimes, Stanford Enters Plea; Bail Is Set at $500,000  It's all well and good if Stanford is found guilty.  But if he is not convicted - the picture of the escorted man in an orange jumpsuit will forever remain. The problem here is not the press.  The problem is the government's misuse of its power to taint an individual who has not been proved guilty.

(esp)

Madoff

The talk of the town is Madoff, assuming one is limited to discussions in the white collar area.  With some comparisons and non-comparisons to Stanford, (see here) and others looking at Skilling's case. (See Business Week here). The sentencing is set for Monday, and the latest is that Bernie Madoff will be allowed to appear in civilian garb. (See here)

Not surprisingly, defense counsel for Madoff filed a sentencing memo asking for 12 years, a number that some victims are not happy with. Will the sentence be higher because cooperation has not reached a level of assisting the government in providing information (if it exists) on others close to him? See David Glovin & Thom Weidlich, Madoff’s Failure to Name Accomplices Cripples His Leniency Bid

Or maybe it will be higher than the amount requested by defense counsel, for the reason that the fraud involved here is not what is seen in many white collar cases. In white collar cases, especially ones coming from the corporate sector, we often see the accused arguing that he or she did not know the conduct was illegal.  Some will argue that admitting the wrongdoing and accepting responsibility should be credited as the Sentencing Guidelines advise.  Others, however, may wonder if this is the perfect example of a case that demonstrates why one should not be penalized for going to trial. Maybe it is easy to say one is guilty when they are the sole person who committed the crime.  But when the acts of others are involved, or the crime involves ambiguous business conduct, it becomes more questionable. So, the real question here is not whether Bermie Madoff should receive 12 years, but whether this sentence is proportionate to others who went to prison for longer amounts of time for conduct they believed was not illegal or for which they should not be held accountable.  It is normally the government that argues that the lesser sentence should go to the one who pleads and cooperates.  But will the government really take that position when the case involves Bernie Madoff? 

Madoff''s Sentencing Memo - Download US_v_Madoff_Sentencing_Letter_June_23_2009 ( w/ a hat tip to Peter Henning)

(esp) (blogging from Tuscon, Arizona)

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Angela Delli Santi, phillyburbs.com (AP), Christie to testify on monitor deals

Sam Wood, Philadelphia Inquirer, Shakeup in roster at U.S. Attorney's Office

DOJ Press Release, Two Military Officials Plead Guilty to Bribery, Fraud and Conspiracy Related to Defense Contracts in Afghanistan

(esp) (blogging from Atlanta airport)

Stanford and Other Execs Indicted

Robert Standard, chair of Stanford Financial Group, along with three executives from the company and one "former chief officer of the Antiguan bank regulatory agency" were indicted.  A DOJ Press Release states:

According to the indictment, Stanford and his co-defendants engaged in a scheme to defraud investors who purchased approximately $7 billion in certificates of deposit administered by Stanford International Bank Ltd. (SIBL), an offshore bank controlled by Stanford and located on the island of Antigua.  Stanford and his co-defendants allegedly misused and misappropriated most of those investor assets, including diverting more than $1.6 billion into undisclosed personal loans to Stanford himself, while misrepresenting to investors SIBL’s financial condition, its investment strategy and the extent of its regulatory oversight by Antiguan authorities.

The Indictment does not include allegations related to section 1346, the honest services clause (is the government shy to use this statute in light of the pending case before the Supreme Court).  The indictment does, however, include fraud charges and conspiracy to commit money laundering against some of those accused.   There will be many interesting questions on the conduct of the government that may arise from this prosecution. (see Attorney Dick DeGuerin'sStatement here as posted on the WSJ site - left hand side of page under Stanford Press Statement here)

Perraud Indictment here

Stanford Indictment here

Davis Information here

See also Evan Perez, WSJ, U.S. Files Criminal Charges in Stanford Case ;Matthew Goldstein, Stanford 'Is Not Madoff'; Mary Flood, Tom Fowler, & Jennifer Dlouhy, Stanford and 4 others indicted -Feds say holders of $7 billion in CDs bilked; Stanford attorney proclaims innocence;Clifford Krauss, NYTimes, Texas Financier and Antiguan Official Charged With Fraud

(esp)

In the News & Around the Blogosphere

Carrie Johnson, Washington Post, After Stevens Case, Justice Dept. Corruption Unit in Disarray

DOJ Press Release, Former Military Contractor Convicted of Participating in Scheme to Steal Large Quantities of Fuel from U.S. Army in Afghanistan

Chronicle of Higher Education, Federal Investigators Subpoena Admissions Records at 3 Illinois Universities (subscription only)

law.com, (AP) Investigated DOJ Prosecutor Removed From Corruption Case

Steve Levin, Fraud With Peril, Stephanie's Fresh Perspective

Yahoo Finance, Judge orders Scrushy to pay $2.9B to shareholders

Craig McCoy, Philly.com, Judge rebuffs Fumo's bid to delay sentencing

Shannon P. Duffy, Legal Intelligencer, law.com, Grand Jury Indicts Medical-Device Companies for Defying FDA Safeguards

(esp) (blogging from Denver)

Commentary on Yeager

The Yeager decision  (see here) by the Supreme Court is an important decision for those handling both white collar and non-white collar cases.  Some thoughts on the decision:

• Just because it is a hung jury on some counts, doesn't mean the government can rrepackage it and try again calling it something else. If  it is the "same offense" it will not be allowed.  Here the conduct forming the basis for the "insider trading" was the same as the "fraud" offense.
• The doctrine set forth in Ashe v. Swenson controls - even when dealing with a multi-count case.
• The government practice of filing multiple counts for the same conduct, hoping that something will stick, doesn't provide them with multiple trials when it is the same conduct and the jury has acquitted on that conduct.  As stated by the Court -

Because a jury speaks only through its verdict, its failure to reach a verdict cannot - by negative implication - yield a piece of information that helps put together the trial puzzle. A mistried count is therefore nothing like the other forms of record material that Ashe suggested should be part of the preclusion inquiry.

• In deciding whether a retrial should be allowed, look at what the jury decided, not at what they failed to decide.  Thus, if they decided that the defendant had no material inside information, then clearly he could not be reprosecuted for conduct that was premised on his having material inside information.
• This decision will assist defendants who suffered multiple trials at enormous costs to them and their families.  The Supreme Court is sending a strong message that the government only has one bite of the apple for the same conduct.
• The Court leaves a door slightly open for the government to relitigate the fact issue in the lower courts, but one hopes that the government will use taxpayer money wisely and move forward with prosecutions where the jury has not spoken.
• This decision reaches far beyond the white collar world and offers defendants who have been subjected to multi-count indictments- set forth in multiple different ways - with increased finality should there be a hung jury on some of the counts in the Indictment.  The breadth of many federal criminal statutes allow for prosecutors to bring the same conduct under different statutes.  If there is an acquittal on the conduct - it really means not guilty.

(esp)(blogging from Boulder, Colorado)

Addendum to Bullet One - Yeager speaks to cases when there is a "not guilty" on some counts and a hung jury on others. Obviously, it would be a different situation if there were a hung jury on all counts.