United States Supreme Court
557 U.S. 110 (2009)
Yeager (defendant) was senior vice president of a division of Enron Corporation. This subdivision was highly touted as a “core” Enron business and major part of its business strategy. At the annual equity analyst conference on January 20, 2000, Yeager and others allegedly made misleading comments about the value and performance of the Enron subdivision. The next day, the price of Enron stock jumped from $54 to $67, reaching $72 the day after. When the stock price hit $72, Yeager sold 100,000 shares, and during the next several months he sold another 600,000, netting $19 million in personal profits. The Enron subdivision he headed later turned out to be a sham. Yeager was charged with 126 counts of five federal offenses. The government’s theory was that Yeager, in collusion with others, purposely deceived the public about the subdivision in order to inflate the stock price and to enrich himself. Of the counts, the ones at issue can be grouped into two main categories: the “fraud counts” and the “insider trading counts.” The jury acquitted Yeager on the fraud counts but failed to reach a verdict on the insider trading counts. The court entered judgment on the acquittals but declared a mistrial on the hung counts. The government, using a refined prosecution strategy, recharged Yeager on some of the insider trading counts. Yeager moved to dismiss all counts in the new indictment because he claimed the acquittals on the fraud counts precluded the government from retrying him on the insider trading counts. The district court denied the motion. After independently reviewing the record, the court of appeals concluded that a “truly rational jury,” having decided that Yeager did not have any insider information, would have acquitted him on those counts, but it did not. The court of appeals decided to consider the hung counts along with the acquittals and decided that it was impossible “to decide with any certainty what the jury necessarily determined.” The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
Dissent (Scalia, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 240,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,200 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.