469 U.S. 57 (1984)
The inmate was acquitted of various narcotics charges but convicted of the compound offenses of using the telephone in committing and in causing and facilitating certain felonies under § 843(b). The appellate court reversed holding that there was an exception to the Dunn rule when a defendant was convicted under§ 843(b).
- On appeal, the Court rejected, as imprudent and unworkable, a rule that would allow criminal defendants to challenge inconsistent verdicts on the ground that in their case the verdict was not the product of lenity but of some error worked against them.
- The Court found that a criminal defendant was already afforded protection against jury irrationality or error by the independent review of the sufficiency of the evidence undertaken by the trial and appellate courts.
- The Court determined that there was no reason to vacate the inmate's conviction merely because the verdicts could not rationally be reconciled.
- The Court held that the inmate was given the benefit of her acquittal on the counts on which she was acquitted and that is was neither irrational nor illogical to require her to accept the burden of conviction on the counts on which the jury convicted.
The Court granted the writ of certiorari and reversed the judgment of the appellate court reversing inmate's convictions on the compound offenses of using the telephone in committing and in causing and facilitating certain felonies because consistency in the verdict was not necessary.
Suggested law school study materials
Shop Amazon for the best prices on Law School Course Materials.