<< What Today Is Really About | Main | News Scan >>

Double Jeopardy

There is one summary reversal on the U.S. Supreme Court's orders list this morning.  If the day of trial arrives, the jury is sworn, the prosecution is not ready and puts on no evidence, the defendant moves for acquittal, and the trial court grants it, can the defendant be retried?   Of course not.  The case is Martinez v. Illinois, No. 13-5967.  The opinion is "per curiam," meaning it is the product of the Court as a whole with no justice identified as the individual author (meaning, probably, it was actually written by someone on the staff).  There is no dissent.

Update:  In other SCOTUS action, the high court ruled unanimously for the police in the car chase/excessive force case, Plumhoff v. Richard, and the Secret Service v. protesters case, Wood v. Moss.  The court ruled 5-4 for the allegedly (but actually not) retarded murderer in the "error of measurement" case, Hall v. Florida.  I will have more on these cases later.


The result in Hall is not at all surprising.

As I commented on this blog back on October 24, 2013: "I believe there will be five votes in Hall to constitutionalize the definition of 'mental retardation.'"

Florida was a clear outlier that didn't fit into Justice Kennedy's consensus-centric Eighth Amendment jursiprudence. The new "uniform national rule" lamented by the dissent was a foregone conclusion.

I am interested in hearing what Kent believes will be the practical fallout from this decision?

The Hall opinion does not make a lot of sense. I look forward to the analysis.

Leave a comment

Monthly Archives