This morning, the Supreme Court is hearing argument in the habeas case of Renico v. Lett. The issue is whether the petitioner’s Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy was violated when a mistrial was declared after the foreperson said the jury was not going to be able to reach a verdict.
Essentially, the question is whether there was a "manifest necessity" to declare a mistrial, even though it wasn't clear that there was officially a "deadlocked jury."
One of the State's main arguments was that the meaning of both of the phrases in quotes in the last paragraph are open questions. For that reason, I am greatly concerned that this will be a Musladin-type case, where the Court will conclude that the law was not clearly established as to what is a "manifest necessity" or what is a "deadlocked jury." Of course, I would argue that the overriding legal principles are clear (and have been for years), and the question really should be whether this was an unreasonable application of those principles.
SCOTUSblog's preview is available here.
Comments
You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.