The irony is that if the prosecution had charged the defendant solely on a count of murder and the jury acquitted him, the prosecution could certainly NOT then come back and say, “Okay, that didn’t work - - let’s try manslaughter and see if that works”. Because THAT would be double jeopardy. In other words, had the judge declared “Not guilty!” on a charge of murder, banged his gavel, and dismissed the jury, the case would be over and the defendant would never be vulnerable to charges - - any charges - - for that same crime again.
The Supreme Court was apparently reluctant to parse its ruling down to a matter of semantics, ie., the names and words used for the charges. The jury must conclude its work or it is a mistrial. If the jury does not conclude its work and there is a mistrial, then how could it be considered reasonable to bind the hands of the next jury that will have to deliberate on the same case?
They would not be binding the hands of the next jury, they would be binding the hands of the prosecutor in the next trial by prohibiting the prosecutor from charging the crime of murder.
The stipulated facts in this case were that the jury clearly and unequivocally voted unanimously to acquit the defendant of murder. The mistrial was called because they could not reach a decision on whether he was guilty of voluntary manslaughter. They never even were allowed to take a vote on the charge of negligent homicide.
Here the prosecution gets a second bite at the apple when the first jury voted to acquit. I don't understand how anyone can't see that this is double jeopardy.
For the first time in her career Sotomayor has written an opinion with which I am in total agreement. Roberts has issued an opinion strong on procedure and short on constitutional analysis.