Document Type



This Article attempts to describe and untangle the confusion leading up to and resulting from the Yeager decision. Part II examines the four distinct double jeopardy areas presented in Yeager, with particular emphasis on the two conflicting precedents of collateral estoppel and the non-finality of a hung jury. Part III closely examines the Yeager decision itself. Part IV analyzes Yeager in light of its tangled doctrinal history and places it in the context of the Court's several other short-lived and rapidly reversed precedents. The Article concludes that the Court's holding in Yeager is neither justified by its precedent nor adequately explained. By failing to justify the extensive departures from its double jeopardy precedent--greatly extending Ashe and severely narrowing Richardson--the Yeager Court further tangled its doctrinal Sargasso Sea