[T][U] United States v. Petrykievicz

MEMORANDUM* The Double Jeopardy Clause is potentially applicable to this case only if the district court's ruling on the first indictment was the functional equivalent of an acquittal. See United States v. Affinito, 873 F.2d 1261, 1264 (9th Cir. 1989) (that a government appeal in a criminal case would not violate the Double Jeopardy Clause if ""the trial court's ruling was unrelated to factual guilt or innocence""). To decide whether Petrykievicz was acquitted of the charges in the first indictment, ""we must determine whether the ruling of the Judge, whatever its label, actually represented a resolution [in the defendant's favor], correct or not, of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged. United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564, 571, 51 L. Ed. 2d 642, 97 S. Ct. 1349 (1977). Under this standard, the district court's ruling in the original case against Petrykievicz did not constitute an acquittal. The court did not resolve any of the factual elements of the offense charged or rely on any of the evidence introduced at trial. Rather, the court looked to the language and legislative history of the statute in order to decide a purely legal question: the breadth of a statutory exception.