Justices hear double jeopardy case
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court appeared inclined on Tuesday to rule that a criminal defendant cannot be tried again since a judge acquitted him midway through a trial, even if the judge based his decision on a legal error.
The justices seemed willing during argument at the high court to endorse the idea that a judge's decision to acquit a defendant is no different than a jury verdict in that both are final.
The issue arises in the case of a Michigan man accused of setting fire to a vacant house. The judge stopped the jury trial and acquitted defendant Lamar Evans based on a mistaken reading of the law under which Evans was charged.
Michigan appellate courts said Evans could be retried.
The Fifth Amendment to the Constitution prohibits people from being tried twice for the same offense. The Michigan courts said the amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause did not apply to Evans because the judge's mistake means he was not truly acquitted.
But several justices said they were reluctant to adopt the Michigan courts' reasoning that Evans should not benefit from a legal windfall because of the judge's mistake. Justice Elena Kagan pointed out that when a judge makes mistakes in instructing jurors before they deliberate on a verdict, the government may not appeal if the defendant is found not guilty. “The same windfall is received by the defendant that gets an acquittal from an improperly instructed jury,” Kagan said.
Justice Antonin Scalia scoffed at the idea advanced by lawyers for Michigan and the Obama administration that courts should be willing to allow a new trial if the judge acquits a defendant at the urging of his lawyer. “Counsel often encourage judges to do the wrong thing. In fact, in every case, there is one of the two counsel urging the court to do the wrong thing, right?” Scalia said. “That's what the adversary system consists of.”
What little apparent support Michigan had on the court came from Chief Justice John Roberts, who said the government is supposed to have a fair shot at convicting a defendant. “It does seem to me if they had been thrown out of court because of a legal error, that's not a fair shot,” Roberts said.
Show commenting policy
TribLive commenting policy
You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.
We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.
While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.
We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers.
We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.
We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.
We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.
We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.
- Study: At least 786 child abuse victims died despite being on protective services’ radar
- U.S., Cuba patching torn relations with historic accord
- $1.5B more a year — from fees tacked onto phone bills — earmarked for faster Internet
- Republican lawmakers vow to block confirmation of any potential ambassador to Cuba
- Castle doctrine doesn’t hold up in Montana murder case
- Sale of ‘Breathe Easy’ shirts blasted amid Indiana protests
- Congress’ legacy: Way worse than ‘do-nothing’ one of 1947-48
- Fracking essentially banned in N.Y.
- Warren’s hangups over trade agenda threaten party ties
- Conn. dentist’s license suspended over death
- Lifting limits on Cuba a boon for U.S.