Standefer v. United States

In Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10 (1980) the petitioner was convicted of aiding and abetting a crime despite the fact that the alleged actual perpetrator, Niederberger, had previously been acquitted of that crime in a different prosecution. Relying on the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel, the petitioner argued that the prior acquittal precluded the government from relitigating the question of the actual perpetrator's guilt. The high court disagreed. It noted that a jury has the power, if not the legal right, to acquit no matter what the evidence, and the prosecution may never challenge such an acquittal. This circumstance 'in criminal cases permits juries to acquit out of compassion or compromise or because of "'their assumption of a power which they had no right to exercise, but to which they were disposed through lenity.'" ' 'In denying preclusive effect to Niederberger's acquittal, we do not deviate from the sound teaching that "justice must satisfy the appearance of justice." The Supreme Court rejected the application of collateral estoppel to bar a defendant's conviction for aiding and abetting a crime for which the principal had been acquitted. (Standefer, supra, 447 U.S. at pp. 11-14, 26.) In contrast with civil cases, the Standefer court explained, the prosecuting authority in criminal cases "is often without the kind of 'full and fair opportunity to litigate' that is a prerequisite of estoppel." (Id. at p. 22.) "Several aspects of our criminal law make this so: the prosecution's discovery rights in criminal cases are limited . . . ; it is prohibited from being granted a directed verdict or from obtaining a judgment notwithstanding the verdict . . . ; it cannot secure a new trial on the ground that an acquittal was plainly contrary to the weight of the evidence . . . ; and it cannot secure appellate review where a defendant has been acquitted. (Ibid.) Whereas a criminal defendant can obtain relief from a guilty verdict "induced by passion or prejudice," the government possesses no remedy for acts of jury nullification. (Id. at p. 23.) Finally, the public and the government have a strong interest in enforcement of the criminal law, even if a prior jury came to a conclusion that could lead to inconsistent verdicts. (Id. at pp. 24-25.)