Acquitted on One Charge, Then Tried on a Related One? Illinois Says No (People v. Collins)
This is a subtitle for your new post
A jury acquits you of one weapons charge after the State fails to prove you possessed the gun. Can prosecutors turn around and try you again on a second charge that depends on the same fact: that you possessed that gun? On May 21, 2026, the Illinois Supreme Court answered no. The decision in People v. Collins, 2026 IL 131300 strengthens a protection that matters to anyone facing multiple related charges in Illinois, and it gives appellate lawyers a sharper tool on direct appeal.
What happened in Collins
Prosecutors charged Terry Collins with several weapons offenses, including unlawful possession of a weapon by a felon (UPWF) and aggravated unlawful use of a weapon (AUUW). Collins asked the trial court to sever the UPWF count so a single jury would not hear that he had a prior felony while deciding the other charges. The court granted that unopposed request.
The State tried the UPWF count first. The only disputed fact was whether Collins possessed the firearm. The jury acquitted him. The State then tried to press forward on the remaining counts, including AUUW, which also required proof that Collins possessed the gun.
Collins moved to dismiss. He argued that the acquittal had already resolved the possession question in his favor, so the State could not relitigate it. The trial court denied that motion as to the AUUW count. The appellate court reversed and barred the AUUW prosecution. The Illinois Supreme Court agreed with the appellate court.
The doctrine: issue preclusion
The principle at work is issue preclusion, which Illinois courts have also called collateral estoppel or estoppel by verdict. When a jury necessarily decides a fact in your favor, the State cannot ask a second jury to decide that same fact again. The United States Supreme Court tied this protection to the Double Jeopardy Clause in Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970), reasoning that a defendant who has been acquitted should not have to run the gauntlet a second time.
The State leaned on a later case, Currier v. Virginia, 585 U.S. 493 (2018). In Currier, the U.S. Supreme Court held that a defendant who consents to severing charges cannot use the federal Double Jeopardy Clause to block a second trial on the severed counts. Prosecutors argued that Collins, by asking to sever the UPWF count, had given up his issue-preclusion protection.
Why the State lost
Chief Justice Neville, writing for a unanimous court, drew the line that Currier itself recognized: the federal Constitution sets a floor, and states may give defendants more protection. Illinois does. The court grounded issue preclusion in both Illinois common law, which has applied estoppel by verdict for more than 140 years, and in the Criminal Code at 720 ILCS 5/3-4. That statute lists specific situations where a later prosecution is not barred. Severance is not on the list. Because the legislature wrote out its exceptions and left severance off, the court refused to add one.
The court also rejected the State's waiver argument. A waiver must be a knowing, voluntary, and intelligent surrender of a known right. Nothing in the record showed that Collins understood his severance request would cost him the ability to invoke issue preclusion, so he gave up nothing. The court closed by framing the point in plain terms: the State had one full and fair chance to prove possession and failed. Issue preclusion is a shield against a second attempt, not a sword.
What this means for your case
If you face several related charges in Illinois and a jury clears you on a fact the State must prove again, Collins helps keep prosecutors from getting a do-over. Asking for separate trials, often the right move to keep prejudicial evidence away from a jury, does not forfeit that protection. These arguments turn on a careful reading of the trial record: what the first jury actually decided, and whether the next charge depends on the same fact. That record work is the core of a strong criminal appeal.
If you or a loved one was acquitted on one charge and now faces prosecution on a related one, or you believe an appeal raises an issue-preclusion or double jeopardy question, call Lewarchik Law LLC for a free consultation at 312-517-3877 (Illinois) or 313-312-8484 (Michigan).
This post discusses a published Illinois Supreme Court opinion for general information. It is not legal advice, and it does not create an attorney-client relationship. Outcomes depend on the facts of each case.
