Double Jeopardy claim rejected

Listen to this article

A defendant claiming a Double Jeopardy violation is not entitled to federal habeas relief where a state court’s application of federal law was not unreasonable, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

The defendant was on trial for first-degree murder and possession of a firearm.

Early in deliberations, the jury sent several notes to the trial judge, including one that read: “What if we don’t agree?” and asked if the result would be a mistrial, a retrial “or what?”

The judge brought in the jury and asked the foreperson: “Are you going to reach a unanimous verdict or not?”

When the foreperson hesitated, the judge asked: “Yes or no?”

“No, Judge,” the foreperson said.

“I hereby declare a mistrial,” the judge said.

The defendant later was retried and convicted of second-degree murder and a gun charge, but the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the first trial court abused its discretion in declaring that the jury was deadlocked, and therefore the second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause.

The Michigan Supreme Court disagreed, and the defendant sought federal habeas relief.

A U.S. District Court and the Sixth Circuit concluded the state supreme court unreasonably misapplied Supreme Court precedent and habeas relief should be granted.

The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case, and reversed in a 6-3 ruling.

In an opinion written by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr., the Court noted the Sixth Circuit’s interpretation of the record — including the short length of deliberations and the vagueness of the jury’s notes and statements — was not unreasonable. But, the Court stated, neither was the state court’s.

“[The] trial was not complex, and there is no reason that the jury would necessarily have needed more than a few hours to deliberate over [the defendant’s] guilt,” Chief Justice Roberts wrote. “The notes the jury sent to the judge certainly could be read as reflecting substantial disagreement, even if they did not say so outright. Most important, the foreperson expressly told the judge [that] the jury would be unable to agree.”

Justice John Paul Stevens dissented, joined by Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Stephen Breyer.

Renico v. Lett, No. 09-338, May 3.