469 U.S. 57 (1984)
In 1982, respondent Betty Lou Powell’s husband, Ron Powell, aided by his 17-year-old son Jeff and others, was operating a lucrative cocaine and methaqualone distributorship from the Powell home near San Diego, Cal.1 Federal authorities tapped the Powells’ telephone pursuant to a court order, and many conversations were recorded, including at least four which indicated that respondent was playing a minor role in the drug distributorship.2 Three of these conversations indicated that respondent was helping her husband and son to distribute drugs and to collect money owed for drugs sold.3 The fourth involved a conversation with a travel agent in which respondent booked an airline ticket for her husband in an assumed name.4
In April 1982, Ron Powell learned of the wiretap and notified his son, who called respondent and told her to leave home and drive to Los Angeles.5 Respondent was followed by FBI agents, who after some difficulty managed to stop respondent and arrest her.6 A search of the car uncovered, inter alia, 2 kilograms of cocaine, 2,700 methaqualone tablets, a pistol, a machine gun, 2 silencers, and $30,000 cash.7
Respondent was indicted by a grand jury in the Southern District of California for 15 counts of violations of federal law.8 Ten of these counts alleged transgressions of the federal narcotics laws; a jury convicted respondent of only three of these, and acquitted her of the others.9 Count 1 charged respondent with conspiring with her husband and 17-year-old son, and others, to knowingly and intentionally possess with intent to distribute cocaine.10 Count 9 charged respondent with possession of a specific quantity of cocaine with intent to distribute it.11 The jury acquitted respondent of Counts 1 and 9.12 Counts 3, 4, 5, and 6 charged respondent with using the telephone in committing and in causing and facilitating conspiracy to possess with intent to distribute and possession with intent to distribute cocaine in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 843(b).13 The jury convicted her of Counts 3, 4, and 5, and acquitted her of Count 6.14
Of the remaining five counts, four charged illegal possession of firearms on which respondent was acquitted and one charged making false statements in her petition for court-appointed counsel on which she was convicted.15 Respondent appealed to the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, which overturned the telephone facilitation convictions in an opinion at 708 F. 2d 455 (1983).16 The Government petitioned for rehearing, and the court issued a second opinion at 719 F. 2d 1480 (1983) adhering to its reversal.17 The Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the Ninth Circuit’s decision.18
Whether the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit correctly enunciated an exception to Dunn v. United States when it overturned respondent’s convictions?19
In Dunn v. United States, this Court held that a criminal defendant convicted by a jury on one count could not attack that conviction because it was inconsistent with the jury’s verdict of acquittal on another count.20 Consistency in the verdict is not necessary. Each count in an indictment is regarded as if it was a separate indictment.21 If separate indictments had been presented against the defendant for possession and for maintenance of a nuisance, and had been separately tried, the same evidence being offered in support of each, an acquittal on one could not be pleaded as res judicata of the other. Where the offenses are separately charged in the counts of a single indictment the same rule must hold.22
No. The jury reached inconsistent verdicts by acquitting respondent of the conspiracy and possession counts while convicting her on three telephone facilitation counts.23 The Dunn rule establishes that such inconsistencies do not require reversal because each count stands alone and the jury may have acted through lenity or compromise.24 The Government cannot appeal the acquittals under the Double Jeopardy Clause, so the defendant may not upset the convictions on this ground.25 The Ninth Circuit erred by carving out an exception for interdependent counts, contrary to the principle that each count is treated as a separate indictment.26
The judgment of the Court of Appeals must be reversed because the Dunn rule precludes setting aside the inconsistent verdicts reached by the jury in this case.27