Supreme Court says double jeopardy does not protect against murder retrial

Washington Post ^ | Thursday, May 24 2012, 5:49 PM | Robert Barnes

[Olog-hai]

Arkansas may retry a man for murder even though jurors in his first trial were unanimous that he was not guilty, the Supreme Court ruled Thursday.

Alex Blueford, who is accused of killing his girlfriend’s 1-year-old son, is not protected by the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause, the court ruled in a 6 to 3 decision.

Because the judge dismissed the jury when it was unable to reach agreement on lesser charges, Blueford was not officially cleared of any of the charges, the majority said, and thus may be retried.

“The jury in this case did not convict Blueford of any offense, but it did not acquit him of any either,” Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote.

The decision brought a sharp dissent from Justice Sonia Sotomayor, who was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

“Blueford’s jury had the option to convict him of capital and first-degree murder, but expressly declined to do so,” Sotomayor wrote. “That ought to be the end of the matter.”

The Double Jeopardy Clause is found in the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment and commands that no person shall be “twice put in jeopardy of life or limb” for the same offense. …

[null and void]

I gotta side with the wise latina on this one.

Never thought I’d ever say that sentence.

*sigh*

[Our man in washington]

I agree with you. Roberts’ logic is strained on this one.

[Cicero]

I agree. Roberts is wrong on this one, I think.

[Sporke]

I’m totally shocked by this decision. They couldn’t be more wrong... :-/

[Sporke]

I’m totally shocked by this decision. They couldn’t be more wrong... :-/

[HiTech RedNeck]

Perhaps more was appealed from this case than the USSC took up. Like the judge ought to have accepted the partial not guilty verdicts.

It seems to open the door for the prosecution and judge to engineer almost limitless mulligans.

[WackySam]

Bad, bad, very bad, decision.

[Talisker]

Outrageous.

[yefragetuwrabrumuy]

The majority was right on this one. Until a jury has reached its verdict, any back and forth they have with the judge is just part of their deliberations.

There have been cases where juries have already decided, but asked the judge a last minute question, the answer to which changes the vote of one or more jurors, who notify the jury foreman.

Even more common, when a jury finds a defendant guilty, the defense can demand that each individual juror be polled to say, on their own, that yes, they did vote guilty. This is based on a suspicion that a juror was bullied into a verdict they disagreed with, or was just misheard by the foreman.

However, that being said, I think it was inappropriate for the prosecutor to present a whole gamut of charges for which the defendant could have been convicted for the same offense.

That is like a multiple choice question where four of the answers are “yes”, and only one is “no”. It is unbalanced in favor of conviction.

[P-Marlowe]

This is a dangerous precedent. It is one of those broken clock moments at SCOTUS.

[MacMattico]

I originally thought I disagreed with this decision, but after reading the whole article and thinking about it, the jury was dismissed and no verdict, not guilty or guilty on any charge was returned. Yes, the jurors said on an informal vote they didn't think the defendant was guilty of murder, but when the judge told them to go back and deliberate more, minds could have been changed. Jury's argue and change positions all the time. In many cases, the original vote could be for guilty but not unanimous and after more deliberation not guilty could be returned as the official, unanimous decision signed and agreed to by each jury member. This judge seems to have released this jury before any official verdict was reached, hence no double jeopardy. (In my non-attorney opinion.)

[xzins]

It appears that a technicality is in effect here, if I’m reading this correctly.

There were a numbr of charges. One of them was murder. There were a number of lesser charges. However, it’s all one trial.

Since the jury couldn’t answer all of the questions, the jury appears to have been dismissed before it officially announced any of its decisions.

The judge dismissed the jury. I assume that means he thought the process was broke, so he sent the jury home.

If I’m reading this correctly, NO acquital was every announced for any charge including the murder charge.

Am I reading this correctly up to this point?

[TennesseeProfessor]

In this case, the jury unanimously agreed against capital murder, unanimously agreed against 1st degree murder, and split against manslaughter (9-3 tilted toward acquittal).

Whether this was the right verdict or wrong verdict, it is unconstitutional to retry the charges he was acquitted on, and I am astounded the supreme court is allowing it.

[JLS]

Sorry, but the jury did not reach a decision. I think the judge should have taken the verdict on the two counts, but that probably requires an actual verdict form and the judge polling the jury not just a statement by the foreman.

I wonder if the guy appealed again asking appeals courts to order the judge to reconvene the jury and take those verdicts, if he would get such an order? I wonder if the judge had the power to do that in that state?

[SeaHawkFan]

From the Summary: "As permitted under Arkansas law, the jury’s options in this case were limited to two: either convict on one of the offenses, or acquit on all offenses."

Technically, this didn't happen and is the basis of the majority's opinion. The basis for the majority's decision is really weak. The Arkansas law in this regard is clearly unconstitutional.

You are correct about the wise latina getting this one right.

[MacMattico]

I agree with you that the fault here lies with the Prosecution. Pick a charge or charges and present your case! No more throwing everything at the defendant to see what sticks, because to me it comes across as you, the Prosecution, don’t really have any idea what really happened. So how are you supposed to convince a jury?

[P-Marlowe]

Am I reading this correctly up to this point?

The Constitution is unequivocal on this issue. You cannot be tried twice for the same offense. Here the Jury reached a unanimous verdict of not guilty on the murder charge. The prosecution charged a lot of lesser included offenses as a back up to the murder charge just in case they didn't win on that one. They lost on that one.

The bottom line is that the Jury acquitted the defendant of the crime of murder but because the jury could not reach a verdict on manslaughter or cheating on his taxes or whatever other crimes he was accused of during the trial, the judge did not accept the verdict and ordered a new trial on all issues including the murder charge that the Jury actually made a decision on.

This is a real travesty of justice. I've been seeing a lot of this kind of stuff lately and my confidence in the judicial system is at an all time low.

Roberts should be ashamed of this decision. Just because you are a conservative does not mean that you have to bend the law to put away criminal defendants. This guy probably deserved to be convicted, but he wasn't. The Constitution prohibits double jeopardy and this is as clear a case of double jeopardy as I can imagine.

[MacMattico]

They never officially rendered any decision on any charge.

[null and void]

The jury acquitted the guy on the murder charge.

The judge failed to enter the verdict.

The court has green-lighted multiple trials based on a judge’s error, an error any judge could now make to justify a future retrial for any defendant the judge or The State doesn’t like.