Whether the district court violated the collateral estoppel component of the double-jeopardy clause by allowing the government to reintroduce its entire health care fraud case, which was rejected by the jury at the first trial, at the second trial on the previously hung RICO conspiracy charge, thereby gaining an unfair advantage that rendered the second trial fundamentally unfair

QUESTION PRESENTED ; Government prosecutors strategically decided to subdivide their prosecution of petitioner’s ongoing New York city enterprise into two parts. The first jury acquitted petitioner on 8 of 9 counts, three non-RICO conspiracy counts : and six substantive offense counts involving health insurance fraud. It hung on the RICO conspiracy charge. After losing, prosecutors reindicted petitioner for the same RICO conspiracy, targeting the same enterprise’s securities fraud and illegal gambling activities. At the second trial, the district court let the government reintroduce its entire health care fraud case to help secure a conviction on the previously hung RICO conspiracy count. Did the district court violate the collateral estoppel component of the double-jeopardy clause by letting the government reintroduce at . the second trial its entire health care fraud case rejected by the jury at the first . trial and thus gain an unfair advantage that rendered the second trial fundamentally unfair. ' The attached