No. __________ IN THE Supreme Court of the United States LAWRENCE G. HUTCHINS III, SERGEANT, UNITED STATES MARINE CORPS, Petitioner, v. UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Respondent. On Petition for a Writ of Certiorari to the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI S. BABU KAZA CHRIS G. OPRISON LtCol, USMCR DLA Piper LLP (US) THOMAS R. FRICTON 500 8th St, NW Captain, USMC Washington DC Counsel of Record Civilian Counsel for U.S. Navy-Marine Corps Petitioner Appellate Defense Division 202-664-6543 1254 Charles Morris St, SE Washington Navy Yard, D.C. 20374 202-685-7291 [email protected] i QUESTION PRESENTED In Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), this Court held that the collateral estoppel aspect of the Double Jeopardy Clause bars a prosecution that depends on a fact necessarily decided in the defendant’s favor by an earlier acquittal. Here, the Petitioner, Sergeant Hutchins, successfully fought war crime charges at his first trial which alleged that he had conspired with his subordinate Marines to commit a killing of a randomly selected Iraqi victim. The members panel (jury) specifically found Sergeant Hutchins not guilty of that aspect of the conspiracy charge, and of the corresponding overt acts and substantive offenses. The panel instead found Sergeant Hutchins guilty of the lesser-included offense of conspiring to commit an unlawful killing of a named suspected insurgent leader, and found Sergeant Hutchins guilty of the substantive crimes in furtherance of that specific conspiracy. After those convictions were later reversed, Sergeant Hutchins was taken to a second trial in 2015 where the Government once again alleged that the charged conspiracy agreement was for the killing of a randomly selected Iraqi victim, and presented evidence of the overt acts and criminal offenses for which Sergeant Hutchins had previously been acquitted. Sergeant Hutchins was convicted of the charges at the retrial. The military appellate courts applied Ashe, and held that the panel at the first trial acted rationally, and had acquitted Sergeant Hutchins of the alleged random victim conspiracy agreement and the related overt acts and criminal offenses. But the Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces (CAAF) found that even if those same precluded ultimate facts were presented ii as essential elements of the charges at the retrial, issue preclusion did not apply, as different facts which were not similarly precluded were available as an alternative basis for the same essential elements. Therefore, the question presented is: Whether the right under the Double Jeopardy Clause to the issue preclusive effect of an acquittal applies where precluded and un-precluded facts are alternative grounds for essential elements of a criminal charge. iii TABLE OF CONTENTS QUESTION PRESENTED .......................................... i TABLE OF CONTENTS ............................................ iii TABLE OF AUTHORITIES ....................................... v PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI ............. 1 OPINIONS BELOW ................................................... 1 JURISDICTION .......................................................... 1 CONSTITUTIONAL PROVISION INVOLVED ........ 1 STATUTES INVOLVED ............................................ 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE .................................... 2 I. Legal Background.............................................. 2 II. Factual and Procedural Background. .............. 3 A. Government Case ....................................... 5 B. Defense Case ............................................... 6 C. Instructions ................................................. 7 D. Findings ...................................................... 8 E. Retrial ......................................................... 8 F. Decision of the Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals ......................... 12 iv G. Decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces .................. 13 REASONS TO GRANT REVIEW............................. 14 I. This case is emblematic of a gap in double jeopardy jurisprudence that can only be resolved by this Court. ................................... 15 II. The question presented is important. ......... 19 III. This case presents an ideal vehicle to address the question presented. ……… .................. .…21 CONCLUSION .......................................................... 21 APPENDIX................................................................ 1a Text of Articles 81, 128, 130, 134, UCMJ. ........... 1a Published Opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces, Dated May 29, 2019. ............................................................................... 4a Unpublished Opinion of the United States Navy- Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals, Dated January 29, 2018 ................................................ 23a v Table of Authorities United States Constitution U.S. CONST. amend. V ............................................ 1, 2 Supreme Court of the United States Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) ............. 2, 14-15 Arizona v. California, 460 U.S. 605 (1983) .............. 21 Braverman v. United States, 317 U.S. 49 (1942) ..... 19 Bravo-Fernandez v. United States, 137 S.Ct. 352 (2016) ..................................................................... 2, 15 Chapman v. California, 386 U.S. 18 (1967) ............. 18 Christianson v. Colt Industries Operating Corp., 486 U.S. 800 (1998) .......................................................... 21 Currier v. Virginia, 138 S. Ct. 2144 (2018) ........ 14, 17 Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) .... 2, 15 Iannelli v. United States, 420 U.S. 770 (1975) ........ 15 Miranda v. Arizona, 384 U.S. 436 (1966) ................ 18 Morris v. Matthews, 475 U.S. 237 (1986) ................. 19 Price v. Georgia, 398 U.S. 323 (1970) ....................... 18 Sanabria v. United States, 437 U.S. 54 (1977) ........ 20 United States v. Jimenez Recio, 537 U.S.270 (2003) ................................................................... 15 Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) .................................................... 2, 14-15, 17 United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces United States v. Hutchins, 78 M.J. 437 (C.A.A.F. 2019) .............................................................. passim United States Circuit Courts of Appeals United States v. Carboni, 204 F.3d 39 (2d Cir. 2000) ..................................................................... 16 United States v. Gonzalez, 110 F.3d 936 (2d Cir. 1997) ..................................................................... 16 vi United States v. Grimm, 738 F.3d 498 (2d Cir. 2013) ..................................................................... 16 United States v. Parker, 553 F.3d 1309 (10th Cir. 2009) ..................................................................... 16 United States v. Provenzano, 615 F.2d 37 (2d Cir. 1980) ..................................................................... 16 United States v. Rosenblatt, 554 F.2d 36 (2d Cir. 1977) ....................................................... 16 United States v. Rubin, 844 F.2d 979 (2d Cir. 1988)……………………………………. .... 16 United States v. Salameh, 152 F.3d 88 (2d Cir. 1998) ..................................................................... 16 United States v. Salmonese, 352 F.3d 608 (2d Cir. 2003) ..................................................................... 16 United States v. Tanner, 629 F.2d 456 (7th Cir. 1980) ..................................................................... 20 United States v. Tocco, 306 F.3d 279 (6th Cir. 2002) ..................................................................... 20 Ward v. United States, 694 F.2d 654 (11th Cir. 1983) ........................................................................... 20 United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals United States v. Hutchins, No. 200800393, 2018 CCA LEXIS 31 (N-M. Ct. Crim. App. Feb. 26, 2018) .............................................................. passim Statutes 10 U.S.C. § 881 ............................................................ 2 10 U.S.C. § 907 ............................................................ 2 10 U.S.C. § 918 ............................................................ 2 10 U.S.C. § 921 ............................................................ 2 10 U.S.C. § 928 ............................................................ 2 10 U.S.C. § 930 ............................................................ 2 10 U.S.C. § 934 ............................................................ 2 28 U.S.C. § 1259 .......................................................... 1 vii Federal Rule of Evidence Federal Rule of Evidence 404(b) ....................... passim 1 PETITION FOR A WRIT OF CERTIORARI Sergeant Lawrence G. Hutchins III, United States Marine Corps, respectfully petitions this Court for a writ of certiorari to review the decision of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces. OPINIONS BELOW The published opinion of the United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces appears at pages 4a through 22a of the appendix to this petition. It is reported at 78 M.J. 437. The unpublished opinion of the United States Navy-Marine Corps Court of Criminal Appeals appears at pages 23a through 204a of the appendix. It is available at 2018 CCA LEXIS 31. JURISDICTION The United States Court of Appeals for the Armed Forces issued its initial decision