Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Dunn v. United States — Opinion of the Court
“ Where there is a verdict of not guilty on one count and a verdict of guilt on another, and the former necessarily determines that the evidence failed to establish a fact which is an essential ingredient of the offense charged in the other count, then, in determining whether the evidence was sufficient to sustain the finding of guilt, the court must exclude from consideration the fact so found in favor of the accused. ”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Dunn v. United States — Opinion of the Court
“ The charge that, if petitioner were absent, he must be acquitted, also applied on all counts. There is no ground to hold that the jury, notwithstanding petitioner's absence from the place when the prohibition agents were there, found him guilty of nuisance, and that because of that absence it found him not guilty of the very act alleged to constitute the nuisance. The jury must have rejected his alibi. And, if petitioner through another kept for sale the liquor as charged in the first count, he necessarily acted through the same agent as to the identical possession alleged in the second. ”
Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Dunn v. United States — Opinion of the Court
“ Nothing remains to support the opposite finding under the first count. The repugnancy is such that, if the first is accepted, the second must be rejected. I am of opinion that this record plainly requires an express and unqualified decision that these findings conflict and are completely repugnant.What is the legal effect of such conflict in the verdict?Where the jury's action reflects mere inconsistency in the consideration of the evidence which results in apparently illogical or unreasonable conclusions, courts will disregard differences and give effect to the verdict. ”
