Whether the Fifth Amendment's double jeopardy clause protects an individual from subsequent prosecution when insufficient evidence was produced to rebut the presumption of a right to carry a firearm established in Bruen

In New York State Rifle & Pistol Association, Inc. v. Bruen , 597 U.S. 1 (2022), this Court held that the Second Amendment presumptively protects an individual’s right to carry a firearm in public for self-defense. Id. at 10, 33. Over 1½ months after this decision issued, the Petitioner was convicted in state court of carrying a firearm in public without a license. His conviction was vacated after he argued that the prosecution had failed to introduce evidence to rebut the presumption that he was engaged in constitutionally protected conduct. His motion to prevent retrial on double jeopardy grounds was denied and the Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court (hereinafter, “SJC”) held that a retrial was not barred by double jeopardy principles. The questions presented to this Court are: 1. Whether the Fifth Amendment’s double jeopardy clause as interpreted by Burks v. United States , 437 U.S. 1, 18 (1978) protects an individual from a subsequent prosecution where the prosecutor produced insufficient evidence at trial to support a conviction by failing to rebut the presumption already established by Bruen at the time of trial of a right to carry a firearm outside the home in selfdefense; 2. Whether a state court must immediately implement this Court’s interpretation of the Second Amendment and not delay its full application until such time as it has had the opportunity to rule on iiihow that holding impacts state evidentiary law pursuant to U.S. Const. Art. VI; and 3. Whether an evidentiary statute that places the burden on a defendant to produce evidence that he is engaged in constitutionally protected conduct offends notions of Due Process and cannot justify the prosecution’s failure to prove an element of a criminal offense in accordance with In re Winship , 397 U.S. 358 (1970).