DOJ-OGR-00004719.jpg

Case 1:20-cr-00330-PAE Document 295 Filed 05/25/21 Page 12 of 26 Circuit has explained, the “key issue” for jeopardy attachment is “whether the disposition of an individual’s indictment entailed findings of facts on the merits such that the defendant was placed in genuine jeopardy by the making of such findings.” United States v. Dionisio, 503 F.3d 78, 83 (2d Cir. 2007), cert. denied, 129 S. Ct. 158 (2008); see United States v. Vanhoesen, 366 F. App’x 264, 266-67 (2d Cir. 2010) (summary order) (“Jeopardy attaches when ‘there has been a fact-based resolution of elements of the offense charged as a result of a process in which the defendant risked 999 conviction.’” (quoting Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 85)). Traditionally, jeopardy attaches “to the entire indictment as soon as a jury is empaneled.” Podde, 105 F.3d at 816. In the context of pretrial dispositions, it is “essential” for jeopardy attachment that the resolution involve “adjudication of some facts that go to the merits of a charge against a defendant.” Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 84 (emphasis in original). For a guilty plea, jeopardy attaches to the offense of conviction. See Morris v. Reynolds, 264 F.3d 38, 49 (2d Cir. 2001) (“Given that a guilty plea is a conviction, and that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects against a second prosecution for the same offense after conviction, the Clause prohibits a second prosecution for the same offense following a guilty plea.” (citations and internal quotation marks omitted)). But it generally does not attach to counts that are dismissed simply pursuant to “an agreement between the parties,” involving no “process that put [the defendant] at any risk of conviction.” Dionisio, 503 F.3d at 89; see Annabi, 771 F.2d at 672 (“[S]ince appellants were never in jeopardy on the charges dismissed in the Eastern District, the protection they now seek under the plea agreement is necessarily broader than that accorded by the Double Jeopardy Clause.”); United States v. Hernandez, No. 09 Cr. 625 (HB), 2009 WL 3169226, at *4 (S.D.N.Y. Oct. 1, 2009) (explaining, under Dionisio, that where “Judge Hellerstein merely granted the Government’s motion to dismiss Count One pursuant to the plea agreement,” jeopardy did not attach to Count One); cf Evans v. DOJ-OGR-00004719