Richard E. Paulus, M.D. v. United States

Petitioner faced a jury trial and was convicted, but the district court granted a post-trial judgment of acquittal. The government exercised its limited right to appeal in criminal cases and persuaded the Sixth Circuit to reinstate Petitioner’s conviction, but it did so by withholding critical exculpatory evidence from the appellate court and Petitioner and making arguments directly contradicted by that evidence. When the government’s due process and ethical violations came to light, the appellate court set aside Petitioner’s previously reinstated convictions. The prosecutors announced their intent to retry Petitioner. He argued that a second trial would constitute double jeopardy, because the decision reversing his acquittal had been the product of a fraud upon the court and, but for that fraudulently procured opinion, he would have been protected from retrial by virtue of his acquittal. The Sixth Circuit held, in conflict with precedent from this Court and the Third Circuit, that Petitioner’s argument exceeded the bounds of its interlocutory jurisdiction to consider his Double Jeopardy appeal. The questions presented are:

1. Did the Sixth Circuit err by ruling that it lacked jurisdiction to consider Petitioner’s allegations of fraud upon the court and ethical and due process violations by the government when evaluating his double jeopardy claim?

2. When the government commits fraud upon an appellate court in securing reversal of a post-