United States v. Powell

Background

A woman arrested in a San Diego drug investigation was tried on 15 federal counts, including conspiracy, possession of cocaine, and using a telephone to help commit drug crimes. The jury acquitted her of the conspiracy and possession counts but convicted her on three counts involving use of a telephone to facilitate those alleged crimes. The Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit overturned the telephone convictions, treating the acquittals as inconsistent with those guilty verdicts.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court reviewed whether that appeals-court exception to the longstanding Dunn rule was correct. The Court held that Dunn — which lets inconsistent jury verdicts stand rather than allowing defendants to attack convictions based on acquittals on other counts — remains sound. The majority explained that inconsistent verdicts can reflect jury lenity, compromise, or mistake; the Government cannot appeal an acquittal because of double jeopardy protections; and courts should not pry into jury deliberations to judge why a verdict was reached. The Court therefore reversed the Ninth Circuit and reinstated the convictions for the telephone counts.

Real world impact

The ruling means defendants generally cannot have convictions thrown out merely because a jury acquitted on a related count. Prosecutors keep guilty verdicts even when other counts result in acquittal, and courts will rely on existing sufficiency-of-the-evidence review rather than probing jury motives. The Court left open some narrow situations where one guilty verdict logically excludes another, but the broad rule protecting inconsistent jury verdicts remains in force.