THE SECOND CIRCUIT HAS NOTED (IN THE 1974 CASE OF UNITED STATES V. TRAMUNTI) THAT THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE IS RARELY AVAILABLE TO A CRIMINAL DEFENDANT SINCE IT IS PARTICULARLY DIFFICULT TO ASCERTAIN PRECISELY WHICH ISSUES HAVE BEEN FINALLY DETERMINED BY A JUDGEMENT OF ACQUITTAL. NEVERTHELESS, IN UNITED STATES EX REL. ROGERS V. LAVAL LEE (1974), THE SECOND CIRCUIT EXPANDED THE APPLICATION OF THE COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL DEFENSE BY HOLDING THAT IT BARS REPROSECUTION OF A DEFENDANT ON A CRIMINAL COUNT ON WHICH A PREVIOUS JURY WAS DEADLOCKED WHEN, CONTEMPORANEOUS WITH THIS DEADLOCK, THERE HAD ALSO BEEN A SIMULTANEOUS ACQUITTAL AND DEADLOCK OF A LESSER INCLUDED OFFENSE OF THE COUNT CHARGED. THE AUTHOR CITES PRIOR CASE LAW TO SUPPORT HER ARGUMENT THAT THE SECOND CIRCUIT, IN ROGERS EXCEEDED THE ESTOPPEL STANDARD ESPOUSED BY THE SUPREME COURT IN ASHE V. SWENSON. (IT WAS IN THIS 1970 CASE THAT THE DEFENSE OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL WAS ESTABLISHED.)