Renico v. Lett
|Docket No.||Op. Below||Argument||Opinion||Vote||Author||Term|
Mar 29, 2010
|May 3, 2010||6-3||Roberts||OT 2009|
Holding: Under the Double Jeopardy Clause, a criminal defendant can be subjected to a new trial if the jury in his original trial was deadlocked and could not reach a unanimous verdict. In this case, a state court ordered a new trial after finding an initial jury deadlocked, and in the second trial, the defendant was convicted. A federal court overturned the conviction after concluding that the trial court did not try hard enough to get the first jury to reach a unanimous verdict. The Supreme Court reversed, holding that the federal court did not give enough deference to the state trial courtâ€™s judgment about whether the first jury was truly deadlocked.
Plain English Summary:
Judgment: Reversed and Remanded, 6-3, in an opinion by Chief Justice John Roberts on May 3, 2010. Justice Stevens dissented, joined by Justice Sotomayor and in part by Justice Breyer.
- Court strikes down Sixth Circuit grant of habeas relief based on Double Jeopardy Clause (Anna Christensen)
- A burden too heavy for the habeas petitioner under AEDPA? (Erin Miller)
- When are a mistrial and retrial double jeopardy? (Erin Miller)
Briefs and Documents
- Brief for Petitioner Paul Renico
- Brief for Respondent Reginald Lett
- Reply Brief for Petitioner Paul Renico