This document is available in two formats: this web page (for browsing content) and PDF (comparable to original document formatting). To view the PDF you will need Acrobat Reader, which may be downloaded from the Adobe site. For an official signed copy, please contact the Antitrust Documents Group.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,    

                  Plaintiff,

                  v.

GLAZIER FOODS CO.,

                  Defendant.


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|         
Criminal No: CR-H-94-58

[filed 4/26/94]



GOVERNMENT'S RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO
DEFENDANT GLAZIER FOODS COMPANY'S MOTION TO
DISMISS COUNT TWO BASED ON COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL

The United States of America, through its undersigned attorneys, submits its Response in Opposition to Defendant Glazier Foods Company's Motion to Dismiss Count Two Based on Collateral Estoppel. Defendant admits that its vice president, John J. Johnson, made the alleged false statement that forms the basis of Count Two of the indictment against Glazier Foods. Motion at 1. However, defendant argues that this charge should be dismissed against it, because Johnson was acquitted on this same count at his trial. United States v. John J. Johnson, No. CR-H-92-152 (S.D. Tex.).

In effect, the defendant argues that the Court apply the civil doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel, which would bar the government from prosecuting Johnson's corporate employer for his alleged false statement because Johnson himself was acquitted of that charge. However, The Fifth Circuit has ruled that the doctrine of nonmutual collateral estoppel does not apply in a criminal case. United States v. Montes, 976 F.2d 235, 239 (5th Cir. 1992), cert. denied, 113 S.Ct. 1831 (1993), citing Standefer v. United States, 447 U.S. 10, 100 S.Ct. 1999 (1980). The Bailin case cited by the defendant does not conflict with this principle, because Bailin does not involve nonmutual collateral estoppel; rather, it involves reprosecution of the same defendant. Double jeopardy and ensuing collateral estoppel issues have no application here, of course, because a different defendant is being tried.

The issue of Glazier Foods' responsibility for the alleged false statement of its vice president, has never been litigated. Therefore, the doctrine of collateral estoppel is inapplicable, and the motion should be denied.




Respectfully submitted,


_______________/s/________________
JANE E. PHILLIPS
JOAN E. MARSHALL
MARK R. ROSMAN

Attorneys
Department of Justice
Antitrust Division
1100 Commerce Street, Room 8C6
Dallas, Texas 75242-0898
(214) 767-8051


CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the Government's Response in Opposition to Defendant Glazier Foods Company's Motion to Dismiss Count Two Based on Collateral Estoppel and proposed Order was sent via Certified Mail-Return Receipt Requested, this 25th day of April, 1994, to:

Joel M. Androphy, Esq.
Berg & Androphy
3704 Travis Street
Houston, TX 77002


_______________/s/________________
JANE E. PHILLIPS
Attorney


UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS
HOUSTON DIVISION



UNITED STATES OF AMERICA,    

                  Plaintiff,

                  v.

GLAZIER FOODS CO.,

                  Defendant.


|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|         
Criminal No: CR-H-94-58


ORDER

HAVING DULY CONSIDERED the Defendant's Motion to Dismiss Count Two Based on Collateral Estoppel and the government's response,

IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion is DENIED.


DONE AND ENTERED THIS ______ day of __________________________, 1994.




_______________________________
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE