Did the Sixth Circuit err in ruling it lacked jurisdiction to consider allegations of fraud upon the court and due process violations in evaluating a double jeopardy claim?

QUESTIONS PRESENTED Petitioner faced a jury trial and was convicted, but the district court granted a post-trial judgment of acquittal. The government exercised its limited right to appeal in criminal cases and persuaded the Sixth Circuit to reinstate Petitioner’s conviction, but it did so by withholding critical exculpatory evidence from the appellate court and Petitioner and making arguments directly contradicted by that evidence. When the government’s due process and ethical violations came to light, the appellate court set aside Petitioner’s previously reinstated convictions. The prosecutors announced their intent to retry Petitioner. He argued that a second trial would constitute double jeopardy, because the decision reversing his acquittal had been the product of a fraud upon the court and, but for that fraudulently procured opinion, he would have been protected from retrial by virtue of his acquittal. The Sixth Circuit held, in conflict with precedent from this Court and the Third Circuit, that Petitioner’s argument exceeded the bounds of its interlocutory jurisdiction to consider his Double Jeopardy appeal. The questions presented are: 1. Did the Sixth Circuit err by ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s allegations of fraud upon the court and ethical and due process violations by the government when evaluating his double jeopardy claim? 2. When the government commits fraud upon an appellate court in securing reversal of a post i trial judgment of acquittal and reinstatement of ajury verdict, and that verdict is later set aside, can the defendant rely on the initial acquittal to invoke the protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause and bar a second trial? RELATED CASES United States v. Paulus, No. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judgment entered Mar. 7, 2017. United States v. Paulus, No. 17-5410, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered Jun. 25, 2018. United States v. Paulus, No. United States District Court for the Eastern District of Kentucky. Judgment entered Apr. 18, 2019. United States v. Paulus, No. 19-5532, United States Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit. Judgment entered Mar. 5, 2020.