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.

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