Court filing — No. 1:24-cr-10178 (Dkt. 45, D. Mass.)
Full text
Case 1:24-cr-10178-FDS Document 45 Filed 10/03/24 Page 1 of 3
United States of America
District of Massachusetts
Suffolk, ss.
United States
v. Docket No. 24-cr-10178
Tran and Martin
Motion to Dismiss #4
Double Jeopardy
Now comes the Defendant, Dean Tran, who moves to dismiss both Count 1 (Obstruction) and
Count 4 (False Statements). As grounds therefore, he submits that this prosecution is barred
under the Fifth Amendment based on the prior case (23-cr-10299) against him.
Argument
I. This Prosecution is barred by the Fifth Amendment
Mr. Tran was convicted by a jury of several counts of wire fraud. In support of its claims
about a scheme to defraud, the Government offered substantially similar evidence used to obtain
this indictment. The Government argued about a fraudulent offer letter. It played a tape of
allegedly false statements made to the agents executing the search warrant. The second
indictment makes use of the same charts and facts as the first indictment. The Government
presented the same text messages. It played the same tape DUA tape used to support this second
indictment.
Two interlocking principles of the 5th Amendment prevent this prosecution. The first is
that since Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) the Fifth Amendment embodies a collateral
estoppel principle.
"Collateral estoppel" is an awkward phrase, but it stands for
an extremely important principle in our adversary system of
justice. It means simply that, when an issue of ultimate fact has
1
Case 1:24-cr-10178-FDS Document 45 Filed 10/03/24 Page 2 of 3
once been determined by a valid and final judgment, that issue
cannot again be litigated between the same parties in any future
lawsuit. Although first developed in civil litigation, collateral
estoppel has been an established rule of federal criminal law at
least since this Court's decision more than 50 years ago in United
States v. Oppenheimer, 242 U. S. 85.
Ashe, 397 U.S. at 443. Requiring a practical and non-technical review, Ashe requires that the
Court review the record of the earlier conviction and determine what factual findings are obvious
from, or implicit in, the earlier trial.
The second principle that Double Jeopardy embraces is that prohibits both multiple trials
and multiple punishments.
That guarantee has been said to consist of three separate
constitutional protections. It protects against a second prosecution
for the same offense after acquittal. It protects against a second
prosecution for the same offense after conviction. And it protects
against multiple punishments for the same offense.
North Caroline v. Pierce, 395 U.S. 711, 717 (1969). Here 2 of the 3 principles are implicated. Mr.
Tran stands to be convicted of a “second prosecution for the same offense after conviction” and
“multiple punishments for the same offense.”
Irrespective of Mr. Tran’s forthcoming appeal, he is now in jeopardy for the same conduct
and would be convicted on the same evidence. Double Jeopardy prohibits this outcome.
Respectfully Submitted,
Dean Tran
By his Attorney
/S/ Michael Walsh
Michael Walsh
BBO 681001
Walsh & Walsh LLP
PO Box 9
Lynnfield, MA 01940
617-257-5496
2
Case 1:24-cr-10178-FDS Document 45 Filed 10/03/24 Page 3 of 3
Walsh.lynnfield@gmail.com
Certificate of Service
I, Michael Walsh, hereby certify that a copy of this motion was served upon all participating
ECF/CM filers on this 3rd day of October, 2024 through the Court’s docketing system.
/S/ Michael Walsh
3