Given Stromberg v. California, Yates v. United States, and Griffin v. United States, whether this Court has clearly established that a jury's verdict that might have been based on a "legally inadequate" theory of criminal liability necessarily violates the Due Process Clause, which relief requires that verdict's vacatur per se. See Yates v. United States, 354 U.S. 298, 312 (1957) (explaining the rule "which requires a verdict to be set aside in cases where the verdict is supportable on one ground, but not on another, and it is impossible to tell which ground the jury selected").

Asked differently, whether, in a federal prosecution, a general guilty verdict on charges of wire fraud must be set aside (on Due Process grounds under Yates) if the jury could have or might have found guilt based on a "legally inadequate" or "legally insufficient" reason or theory of criminal liability (like the mere breaching of a civil contract).

Whether a general guilty verdict on charges of wire fraud must be set aside on Due Process grounds if the jury could have or might have found guilt based on a legally inadequate or legally insufficient reason or theory of criminal liability