Blueford v. Arkansas
| Docket No. | Op. Below | Argument | Opinion | Vote | Author | Term |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| 10-1320 | Ark. S. Ct. | Feb 22, 2012 | May 24, 2012 | 6-3 | Roberts | OT 2011 |
Holding: The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar the state from retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder after the jury in Blueford"s original trial told the trial court that it had voted unanimously against those charges but was deadlocked on the manslaughter charge against him and eventually failed to reach a verdict, causing the court to declare a mistrial.
Plain English Summary: The defendant can be tried again on two serious charges even though the jury in the defendant's first trial unanimously agreed that the defendant was not guilty of those charges. Because the jury could not agree on the other charges in the case, the judge could properly declare a mistrial, requiring the defendant to face a second trial on all charges. The judge was not required to take a partial verdict acquitting the defendant on some of the charges.
Judgment: Affirmed, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice Roberts on May 24, 2012. Justice Sotomayor filed a dissenting opinion, which was joined by Justices Ginsburg and Kagan.
SCOTUSblog Coverage
- Opinion analysis: Retrial does not violate Double Jeopardy Clause (Anne Bowen Poulin, May 29, 2012)
- Argument recap: Double jeopardy limits on state procedural choices? (Anne Bowen Poulin, February 24, 2012)
- Argument preview: Does double jeopardy require partial verdicts? (Anne Bowen Poulin, February 7, 2012)
- Plain English: Recent grants (Amy Howe, November 7, 2011)
- Petition of the day (Conor McEvily, June 3, 2011)
Briefs and Documents
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
- Brief for Constitutional Accountability Center”
- Brief for Criminal Law Professors“
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers”
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent
Certiorari-stage documents
- Opinion below (Ark. S. Ct.)
- Petition for certiorari
- Brief in opposition
- Amicus brief of Constitutional Accountability Center
- Amicus brief of the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers
- Amicus brief of Criminal Law Professors
- Petitioner's reply
Merits Briefs for the Petitioner
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Petitioner
- Brief for Constitutional Accountability Center”
- Brief for Criminal Law Professors“
- Brief for the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers”
Merits Briefs for the Respondent
Amicus Briefs in Support of the Respondent
[##CERT-STAGE##]