COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IN CRIMINAL PROSECUTIONS - TIME TO ABANDON THE IDENTITY OF PARTIES RULE

• NCJ Number: 13482
• Journal: SOUTHERN CALIFRONIA LAW REVIEW Volume: 46 Issue: 3 Dated: (JUNE 1973) Pages: 922-964
• Author(s): C MURRAY
• Date Published: 1973
• Length: 43 pages
• Corporate Author: University of Southern California
• Publication Format: Article
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL (WHICH PREVENTS THE RE-LITIGATION OF THE SAME ISSUES IN SUBSEQUENT TRIALS) SHOULD APPLY TO THE STATE WHERE THE ISSUE WAS THE SINGLE, DISPOSITIVE ONE IN THE PREVIOUS PROSECUTION OF ANOTHER CRIMINAL DEFENDANT.

Abstract

A COMMON STATEMENT OF THE DOCTRINE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS THAT, WHEN A QUESTION OF FACT OR LAW ESSENTIAL TO THE JUDGMENT HAS BEEN LITIGATED AND DETERMINED BY A FINAL AND VALID JUDGMENT, THAT DETERMINATION CONCLUSIVELY ESTABLISHES THE PROPOSITION OF FACT OR LAW IN ALL FUTURE LAWSUITS BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES. ALTHOUGH IT HAS LARGELY BEEN REJECTED IN THE CIVIL LAW, THE IDENTITY OF PARTIES PREREQUISTE TO THE APPLICATION OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL STILL RETAINS A STRONG FOOTHOLD IN THE CRIMINAL LAW. A SIMILAR RELAXATION OF THE IDENTITY OF PARTIES RULE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW WOULD MORE FULLY IMPLEMENT THE FUNDAMENTAL POLICIES UNDERLYING THE CONCEPT OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL - THE CONSERVATION OF JUDICIAL RESOURCES, FOSTERING THE CERTAINTY AND RELIABILITY OF JUDGMENTS, THE PREVENTION OF UNWARRANTED AND VEXATIONS LITIGATION, AND THE AVOIDANCE OF MANIFESTLY INCONSISTENT ADJUDICATIONS. THE ABANDONMENT OF THE IDENTITY OF PARTIES RULE IN THE CRIMINAL LAW SHOULD BE COMPLEMENTED BY THE ADOPTION OF A SINGLE CRITICAL ISSUE TEST - THE STATE WILL BE COLLATERALLY ESTOPPED AS TO AN ISSUE IN A CRIMINAL PROSECUTION ONLY IF THAT ISSUE WAS THE SINGLE CRITICAL, DISPOSITIVE ISSUE IN THE PREVIOUS PROSECUTION OF ANOTHER CRIMINAL DEFENDANT. IN THIS MANNER THE SCOPE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IN THE CRIMINAL LAW WOULD BE RESTRICTED TO ONLY THOSE SITUATIONS IN WHICH THE POLICY GOALS OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL ARE CLEARLY IMPLEMENTED. HOWEVER, WHERE THE STATE CAN SHOW THAT A PRIOR ADJUDICATION OF AN ISSUE WAS CLEARLY ERRONEOUS, OR THAT SIGNIFICANT NEW EVIDENCE IS AVAILABLE WHICH COULD NOT REASONABLY HAVE BEEN UTILIZED AT THE PRIOR PROCEEDING, THEN THE STATE SHOULD BE PERMITTED TO RELITIGATE THE ISSUE. IN THIS MANNER THE APPROPRIATE ACCOMMODATION IS STRUCK BETWEEN IMPLEMENTING THE GOALS OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL AND ENFORCING THE CRIMINAL LAW, THE STATE WILL BE AFFORDED A FULL AND FAIR OPPORTUNITY TO CONTEST AN ISSUE IN COURT. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT)