Whether a general guilty verdict on charges of wire fraud must be set aside on Due Process grounds if the jury could have or might have found guilt based on a legally inadequate or legally insufficient reason or theory of criminal liability

QUESTION PRESENTED Given Stromberg v. California, Yates v. United States, and Griffin v. United States, whether this Court has clearly established that a jury’s verdict that might have been based on a “legally inadequate” theory of criminal liability necessarily violates the Due Process Clause, which relief requires that verdict’s vacatur per se. See Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 312 (1957) (explaining the rule “which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected”). Asked differently, whether, in a federal prosecution, a general guilty verdict on charges of wire fraud must be set aside (on Due Process grounds under Yates) if the jury could have or might have found guilt based on a “legally inadequate” or “legally insufficient” reason or theory of criminal liability (like the mere breaching of a civil contract).+ 1 See generally, e.g., United States v. Yates, __ F.4th __, and available at 2021 WL4699251 (9th Cir. Oct. 8, 2021). ii PROCEEDINGS IN FEDERAL TRIAL AND APPELLATE COURTS DIRECTLY RELATED TO THIS CASE Petitioner, John G. Williams, Jr., was the criminal defendant in the district court and the appellant in the court of appeals. Respondent, the United States of America, was the prosecutor and plaintiff in the district court and the appellee in the court of appeals. The related cases include the following: United States District Court (M.D. Fla. (Fort Myers Division)): United States v. John G. Williams, Jr., Case No. 2:17-cr-16-JES-UAM United States Court of Appeals (11th Cir.): United States v. John G. Williams, Jr., Appeal No. 19-12053, available at __ ~F. App’x __, 2021 WL 4206273 (11th Cir. Sept. 16, 2021) (unpublished). See