Supreme Court rules in Double Jeopardy case

Listen to this article

An informal vote taken by jurors before deliberations conclude and later reported to a judge in court does not amount to an acquittal, and therefore a retrial does not violate a defendant’s Double Jeopardy rights, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled.

The case involved a defendant who was charged with capital murder in connection with the death of a 1-year old child. At trial, the jury was instructed to deliberate on the most serious charges, starting with capital murder, and then move on to the lesser-included charges until it reached a guilty verdict on a charge, or acquitted on all charges.

When the jury indicated to the judge that they could not come to a unanimous verdict, the judge summoned the jurors and asked how they voted. They reported that they voted unanimously against capital murder and first-degree murder, but could not reach a decision on the lesser charge of manslaughter. Because of this, they had not considered the negligent homicide charge. The judge sent them to back to deliberate longer, but the jury indicated that it was deadlocked and the judge declared a mistrial.

When the state sought to retry the defendant, he moved to dismiss the two most serious charges, arguing that he’d been acquitted by the jury and therefore a retrial on those counts would be unconstitutional.

The trial court rejected the motion and the Arkansas Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court agreed to hear the case.

Affirming the state court, the Supreme Court held that Double Jeopardy did not attach because the jury’s report to the judge “was not a final resolution of anything.”

“When the foreperson told the court how the jury had voted on each offense, the jury’s deliberations had not yet concluded,” wrote Chief Justice John G. Roberts, Jr. for the 6-3 majority. “[T]he fact that deliberations continued after the report deprives that report of the finality necessary to constitute an acquittal on the murder offenses.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote a dissent that was joined by Justices Ruth Bader Ginsburg and Elena Kagan.

U.S. Supreme Court. Blueford v. Arizona, No. 10-1320.