Please ensure Javascript is enabled for purposes of website accessibility

Habeas Relief – Double Jeopardy

By: Derek Hawkins//October 19, 2021//

Habeas Relief – Double Jeopardy

By: Derek Hawkins//October 19, 2021//

Listen to this article

7th Circuit Court of Appeals

Case Name: Antwon Flint v. Kevin Carr

Case No.: 20-3165

Officials: WOOD, BRENNAN, and ST. EVE, Circuit Judges.

Focus: Habeas Relief – Double Jeopardy

The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that “No person shall … be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” This constitutional protection prohibits retrial after an acquittal, but a mistrial declared over a defendant’s objection does not always prevent another prosecution. A “manifest necessity” for the mistrial allows a retrial for the same crime.

That is what happened to Antwon Flint. In his first trial in Wisconsin state court, the prosecutor moved for a mistrial based on (alleged) hearsay in Flint’s counsel’s opening statement. The trial court granted that motion, and a jury found Flint guilty at a second trial. Raising double jeopardy, Flint sought relief in the Wisconsin appellate courts; when that failed, he moved for federal postconviction relief. But the district court concluded that Flint failed to overcome the high hurdle for granting habeas imposed by the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act, 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (AEDPA). According to the district court, the Wisconsin Court of Appeals reasonably applied the Supreme Court’s decision in Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978), which requires great deference to a trial judge’s “manifest necessity” determination. So the district court denied Flint’s habeas petition.

We agree. Although we have our reservations about whether a mistrial should have been declared, deference to the discretion of a trial judge and to state court judgments requires that we affirm the denial of Flint’s habeas petition under § 2254.

Affirmed

Full Text


Derek A Hawkins is Corporate Counsel, at Salesforce.

Polls

Should Wisconsin Supreme Court rules be amended so attorneys can't appeal license revocation after 5 years?

View Results

Loading ... Loading ...

Legal News

See All Legal News

WLJ People

Sea all WLJ People

Opinion Digests