Michael Currier was charged with burglary, grand larceny, and possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. To prevent evidence of his prior convictions from prejudicing the burglary and larceny trial, he and the prosecution agreed to try those charges first and the firearm charge separately. After Currier was acquitted at the first trial, he argued that the second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause and that the State could not relitigate issues resolved in his favor. The Supreme Court affirmed the conviction. The Court assumed that the second proceeding could implicate the issue-preclusion principles recognized in Ashe v Swenson, but held that Currier’s consent to separate trials defeated his double-jeopardy objection. He faced a lawful strategic choice between trying the charges together, with the risk of prejudicial evidence, and trying them separately, with the risk of a later firearm trial. The Constitution does not treat a difficult strategic choice as no choice. The Court also rejected importing broad civil issue-preclusion principles into criminal trials through the Double Jeopardy Clause. Justice Ginsburg dissented.