acquittal

Blueford v. Arkansas

Issues

Where a jury states, in open court, that a defendant is not guilty on a greater offense, but then deadlocks on a lesser offense, does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar a retrial of the greater offense?

 

The State of Arkansas brought charges against Alex Blueford for the murder of 20-month-old Matthew McFadden, Jr. Initially, the forewoman told the court that the jury unanimously agreed that Blueford had not committed capital murder or first-degree murder, but that it was unable to arrive at a verdict on the lesser-included offense of manslaughter, and had not reached the lesser-included offense of negligent homicide. Ultimately, the jury announced that it was deadlocked, and the court declared a mistrial. Blueford moved to prevent retrial of the murder charges, arguing that the jury had acquitted him on those counts. Arkansas contended that there was no acquittal because the hung jury was unable to reach a verdict. The Supreme Court of Arkansas denied Blueford’s motion, and he appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. Blueford argues that allowing a retrial on all the charges would violate the Constitution’s Double Jeopardy Clause and allow the state to overreach its authority. Arkansas asserts that barring a retrial on the capital and first-degree murder charges would result in a partial verdict, which leads to jury decisions based on compromise and coercion. The Supreme Court's decision will affect the protections defendants receive from the threat of multiple trials, the pressure on juries to reach a conclusive decision, and whether a court must record a verdict before it becomes final.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether, if a jury deadlocks on a lesser-included offense, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars re-prosecution of a greater offense after a jury announces that it has voted against guilt on the greater offense.

On November 28, 2007, Petitioner Alex Blueford was watching Matthew McFadden, Jr., his girlfriend's 20-month-old son, in their home. See Brief for Petitioner, Alex Blueford at 2. Shortly after Blueford began babysitting, McFadden stopped breathing. See 

Written by

Edited by

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank former Supreme Court Reporter of Decisions Frank Wagner for his assistance in editing this preview.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0

McElrath v. Georgia

Issues

Does the Double Jeopardy Clause allow the retrial of an acquittal where the jury’s inconsistent verdicts on related offenses are deemed invalid under state law?

This case asks the Supreme Court to decide whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents a defendant from being retried on a count where he was acquitted by a jury’s verdict. Petitioner McElrath argues that the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits defendants from being retried once they are acquitted. Petitioner also contends that the Georgia Supreme Court’s “repugnancy rule,” a rule that voids a jury’s verdicts if its findings on the record are extremely inconsistent, conflicts with the purpose and history of the Double Jeopardy Clause. In response, Respondent Georgia contends that state law, not the Double Jeopardy Clause, defines when a verdict is valid. It further asserts that Georgia’s “repugnancy rule” is consistent with the Constitution because repugnant verdicts and inconsistent verdicts are different, and the Supreme Court has never ruled on contradictory jury findings. The outcome of this case will affect the balance between judicial and jury power, as well as how far a federal court’s power can go in reversing a state court’s decision.

Questions as Framed for the Court by the Parties

Whether the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment prohibits a second prosecution for a crime of which a defendant was previously acquitted.

On July 16, 2012, 18-year-old Damian McElrath stabbed his adoptive mother, Diane, more than 50 times in a single attack. McElrath v. State (“McElrath I”) at 575. The attack started in the upstairs bedroom of their shared house and eventually ended at the front door, where Diane died. Id. McElrath then cleaned himself and wrote a note claiming that Diane told him that she was poisoning him.

Acknowledgments

The authors would like to thank Professor John H. Blume for his guidance and insights into this case.

Additional Resources

Submit for publication
0
Subscribe to acquittal