OFTEN, A COURT, IN ORDER TO UPHOLD A CONVICTION, WILL ESTABLISH A RATIONAL BASIS UPON WHICH THE JURY COULD HAVE FOUND A DEFENDANT GUILTY ON ONE CHARGE BUT NOT GUILTY ON ANOTHER CHARGE. THIS WAS ILLUSTRATED IN THE DUNN BENCHMARK CASE AND SUBSEQUENT CASES WHERE COURTS HELD THAT INCONSISTENCY OF A VERDICT ON SEPARATE COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT DOES NOT ENTITLE A CONVICTED DEFENDANT TO THE REVERSAL OF A JUDGMENT OF CONVICTION. JURIES HAVE THE PREROGATIVE TO RETURN INCONSISTENT VERDICTS. TO IDENTIFY THE PROBABLE SOURCE OF CONFUSION IN INCONSISTENT VERDICTS, IT IS IMPORTANT TO DISTINGUISH BETWEEN THE INCONSISTENCY OF A GUILTY VERDICT ON ONE COUNT AND NOT GUILTY ON ANOTHER AND THE INCONSISTENCY OF A GUILTY VERDICT ON BOTH COUNTS OF AN INDICTMENT CHARGING MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OFFENSES. ALTHOUGH IT IS LEGALLY IMPOSSIBLE FOR A DEFENDANT TO BE GUILTY OF TWO MUTUALLY EXCLUSIVE OFFENSES, NO LEGAL IMPOSSIBILITY IS INVOLVED IN A GUILTY VERDICT ON ONE COUNT AND NOT GUILTY ON ANOTHER BECAUSE THE NOT-GUILTY VERDICT REQUIRES NO MORE THAN THE JURY'S EXERCISE OF ITS MERCY-DISPENSING POWER. WITH REGARD TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY, IF AN ACT VIOLATES THE LAW IN TWO JURISDICTIONS, IT CONSTITUTES TWO DIFFERENT CRIMES EVEN IF BOTH BEAR THE SAME NAME. A TRIAL IN ONE JURISDICTION IS NOT FORMER JEOPARDY AS TO THE OTHER. RELATED TO FORMER JEOPARY IS COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL OR ISSUE PRECLUSION. THE EFFECT OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL IS THAT, WHEN AN ISSUE OF FACT HAS ONCE BEEN DETERMINED BY A VALID AND FINAL JUDGMENT, THAT ISSUE CANNOT BE LITIGATED AGAIN BETWEEN THE SAME PARTIES IN A FUTURE LAWSUIT. CASE LAW IS CITED. (DEP)