Supreme Court Allows Arkansas Second Shot At Murder Trial In Double Jeopardy Dispute
Source: Huffington Post
Posted: 05/24/2012 12:12 pm Updated: 05/24/2012 12:49 pm
WASHINGTON -- Arkansas is not barred by the Constitution's double jeopardy clause from retrying a man for murder even though the first jury had announced it was unanimously against the charge, the Supreme Court ruled on Thursday morning.
Alex Blueford was charged with capital murder and its three "lesser included" offenses -- first-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide -- for the 2007 death of his girlfriend's one-year-old son. Under Arkansas law, the jury could either convict Blueford of one of those offenses or acquit him of them all. The jury, per the judge's instructions, considered each offense from most to least serious.
After several hours of deliberations, the jurors reported they were "hopelessly" deadlocked. At the judge's request, they clarified in open court that they were unanimously against the capital murder and first-degree murder charges, remained split over the manslaughter charge, and had yet to consider the negligent homicide charge. The judge sent them back for further deliberations. When the jurors still could not reach a verdict, the judge declared a mistrial.
Arkansas then attempted to retry Blueford on the capital murder and first-degree murder charges. He cried foul, pointing to the jury's unanimous votes against those charges in the first trial and arguing that the state was trying to get a constitutionally prohibited second bite at the apple. The Arkansas Supreme Court rejected his appeal.
[font size=1]-snip-[/font]
Read more: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/24/supreme-court-double-jeopardy-arkansas-murder-alex-blueford_n_1542396.html
wwytchwood
(31 posts)this reverses hundreds of years of precedent and the specific language of the Constitution. Jeopardy has ALWAYS attached when the jury is sworn, and the first verdict of no case WAS binding till now
fascist supreme court
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)When the jury deadlocked on the lesser charges, the Judge declared a mistrial. There was no verdict, first or otherwise.
freshwest
(53,661 posts)Ian David
(69,059 posts)Or am I wrong on that?
jayfish
(10,039 posts)NT
shawn703
(2,702 posts)And the jury was relatively quick in coming back unanimously against those charges, why would Arkansas want to re-try those same charges again instead of the lesser ones that the jury was stuck on before? It would seem to me that they must have had a pretty weak case, and trying again on those charges would just be a waste of taxpayer money.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)jayfish
(10,039 posts)They can retry ad infinitum until they build a jury that will convict.
underpants
(182,925 posts)PoliticAverse
(26,366 posts)The Stranger
(11,297 posts)The Stranger
(11,297 posts)At its core, the Double Jeopardy Clause reflects the wisdom of the founding generation, familiar to everyperson acquainted with the history of governments, that state trials have been employed as a formidable engine in the hands of a dominant administration. . . . To prevent this mischief the ancient common law . . . provided that one acquittal or conviction should satisfy the law. Ex parte Lange, 18 Wall. 163, 171 (1874) (quoting Commonwealth v. Olds, 15 Ky. 137, 139 (1824)).
The Double Jeopardy Clause was enacted to perpetuate this wise rule,so favorable and necessary to the liberty of the citizenin a government like ours. 18 Wall., at 171. This case demonstrates that the threat to individual freedom from reprosecutions that favor States and unfairly rescue them from weak cases has not waned with time. Only this Courts vigilance has.
I respectfully dissent.
Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)Auntie Bush
(17,528 posts)Freddie Stubbs
(29,853 posts)jeff47
(26,549 posts)He was not legally declared 'not guilty' of those charges. Despite the Jury's statements in court, they could have still convicted him of murder.
AtheistCrusader
(33,982 posts)This has happened before.
jayfish
(10,039 posts)...Pointing to decisions from courts in six states with criminal conviction procedures similar to those in Arkansas, Sotomayor further argued that "the Double Jeopardy Clause requires a trial judge, in an acquittal-first jurisdiction, to honor a defendant's request for a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial on the ground of jury deadlock."
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)all of the different criminal procedures in the various states.
The jury forewoman stated in open court and on the record that the defendant was acquitted.
That's where it ends.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)Despite saying they voted against it, the jury could have still convicted on murder.
I fully admit this is a massively thorny area. The argument that double jeopardy should apply is good too.
jayfish
(10,039 posts)the greater charges to be settled before allowing the deadlock on the least, included charge. The SCOTUS said that was just dandy though. This, IMHO, is a worse decision than Citizens United. ...horrible!
jeff47
(26,549 posts)jayfish
(10,039 posts)SCOTUS had a chance to fix that and let it slide.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)acquitted on capital murder and murder 1.
Then they were discharged.
It's a thorny area, but her authority and argument easily carry the day.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)They could have taken another vote on murder and convicted.
The fix I'd like is formally acquitting before considering lesser included charges.
The Stranger
(11,297 posts)then vote again and reverse. That would be clearly reversible.
So all they could do at that point was consider the charges they had deadlocked on.
jeff47
(26,549 posts)But there was no legal requirement that they hold no further votes. On some insane "12-angry-men" planet, they could have changed their minds.
happyslug
(14,779 posts)Last edited Thu May 24, 2012, 05:37 PM - Edit history (1)
http://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/11pdf/10-1320.pdfPlease note, ALL the Males on the Court (Including Breyer, who is noted as part of the "liberal" wing of the court voted to permit re-trial on these issues, but all the Females voted to call it Double jeopardy).
The dissent points out the case should be decided based on Arkansas is a "hard transition" jurisdiction and then points out WHAT that means:
A straightforward application of that principle suffices to decide this case. Arkansas is a classic acquittal-firstor hard-transition jurisdiction. See generally People v. Richardson, 184 P. 3d 755, 764, n. 7 (Colo. 2008). Arkansas model jury instructions require a jury to complete its deliberations on a greater offense before it may consider a lesser. 1 Ark. Model Jury Instr., Crim., No. 302 (2d ed. 1994). As a matter of Arkansas law, before it may consider any lesser-included offense, the jury must first determine that the proof is insufficient to convict on the greater offense. Thus, the jury must, in essence, acquit the defendant of the greater offense before considering his or her guilt on the lesser-included offense. Hughes v. State, 347 Ark. 696, 706707, 66 S. W. 3d 645, 651 (2002).
Here, the trial judge instructed Bluefords jury to consider the offenses in order, from the charged offense of capital murder to the lesser included offenses of firstdegree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide.The judge told the jury to proceed past capital murder only upon a unanimous finding of a reasonable doubt as to that offensethat is, upon an acquittal. See In re Winship, 397 U. S. 358, 363 (1970). The States closing arguments repeated this directive: Before you can consider a lesser included of capital murder, you must first, all 12, vote that this man is not guilty of capital murder. App. 55. And the forewomans colloquy with the judge leaves no doubt that the jury understood the instructions to mandate unanimous acquittal on a greater offense as a prerequisite to consideration of a lesser: The forewoman reported that the jury had not voted on negligent homicide because the jurors couldnt get past the manslaughter count on which they were deadlocked. Id., at 65.
In this context, the forewomans announcement in open court that the jury was unanimous against conviction on capital and first-degree murder, id., at 6465, was an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.2 Per Arkansas law, the jurys determination of reasonable doubt as to those offenses was an acquittal in essence. Hughes, 347 Ark., at 707, 66 S. W. 3d, at 651. By deciding that the State had failed to come forward with sufficient proof,the jury resolved the charges of capital and first-degree murder adversely to the State. Burks, 437 U. S., at 10. That acquittal cannot be reconsidered without putting Blueford twice in jeopardy.
Several pages later:
A jurys genuine inability to reach a verdict constitutes manifest necessity. But in an acquittal-first jurisdiction, a jury that advances to the consideration of a lesser included offense has not demonstrated an inability to decide a defendants guilt or innocence on a greaterit has acquitted on the greater. Under Green, that is unquestionably true if the jury convicts on the lesser. See id., at 189. It would be anomalous if the Double Jeopardy Clause offered less protection to a defendant whose jury has deadlocked on the lesser and thus convicted of nothing at all. See Stone, 31 Cal. 3d, at 511512, n. 5, 646 P. 2d, at 815, n. 5.
I would therefore hold that the Double Jeopardy Clause requires a trial judge, in an acquittal-first jurisdiction, to honor a defendants request for a partial verdict before declaring a mistrial on the ground of jury deadlock. Courts in acquittal-first jurisdictions have so held....
Requiring a partial verdict in an acquittal-first jurisdiction ensures that the jurisdiction takes the bitter with the sweet. In general, an acquittal first instruction increases the likelihood of conviction on a greater offense. See People v. Boettcher, 69 N. Y. 2d 174, 182, 505 N. E. 2d 594, 597 (1987). True, such an instruction may also result in deadlock in a greater, preventing a State from obtaining a conviction on the lesser charge that would otherwise have been forthcoming and thus require the expense of a retrial. Tsanas, 572 F. 2d, at 346. But a State willing to incur that expense loses nothing by overcharging in an acquittal-first regime. At worst, the State enjoys a second opportunity to convict, with the possibility that the earlier trial run will strengthen the prosecutions case. Crist, 437 U. S., at 52 (Powell, J., dissenting). If a State wants the benefits of requiring a jury to acquit before compromising, it should not be permitted to deprive a defendant of the corresponding benefits of having been acquitted. The Double Jeopardy Clause expressly prohibits that outcome.
udbcrzy2
(891 posts)At trial, Blueford claimed that McFaddens injuries occurred while Blueford was on his bed taking a phone call and McFadden climbed up on the bed. Blueford said he was startled when McFadden waved a lit cigarette near his face, causing him to accidentally hit McFadden in the head and knock him to the floor.
While Blueford states that he did not initially recognize that McFadden was harmed, he soon realized something was wrong and tried to revive McFadden. In contrast to Bluefords testimony, Arkansas expert pediatricians and the state medical examiner compared McFaddens injuries to those from a serious car accident and contended that the injuries were caused by severe, intentional trauma.
http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/cert/10-1320
underpants
(182,925 posts)and if you beat the rap the state can appeal. THE STATE CAN APPEAL???
Amazing and sad what we have become.
coalition_unwilling
(14,180 posts)what matters a little extra 'double jeopardy' burned on the altar of empire?
dpbrown
(6,391 posts)I don't think this a very good case for saying he's protected by double jeopardy.
He got a mistrial, not an acquittal.