Thomson Reuters News & Insight
Featured Content from WESTLAW
Beginning in June, Thomson Reuters News & Insight content will be available exclusively on WestlawNext®, as part of its Practitioner Insights offering. On June 21, the Thomson Reuters News & Insight website, iPhone® app and newsletters will be discontinued. See Frequently Asked Questions to learn more.

Legal

  •  
  •  

A house on fire. File photo. REUTERS Fred Greaves

Supreme Court bars defendant's retrial after judge errs

2/20/2013 COMMENTS (0)

By Jonathan Stempel

WASHINGTON, Feb 20 (Reuters) - The U.S. Supreme Court on Wednesday said Michigan cannot retry a defendant whose arson case had been thrown out by a trial judge who mistakenly required state prosecutors to prove more than they needed to.

The 8-1 decision was a victory for defendant Lamar Evans, who had argued that the U.S. Constitution's general prohibition against being tried twice for the same crime, known as double jeopardy, barred a retrial.

Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the majority that while all sides agreed that the midtrial acquittal was wrong, having been based on a misunderstanding of state law, the error was "of no moment" for double jeopardy purposes, even if it created what Michigan called a "windfall" for the defendant.

"Having chosen to vest its courts with the power to grant midtrial acquittals, the state must bear the corresponding risk that some acquittals will be granted in error," she wrote.

Evans had been caught on Sept. 22, 2008, by two Detroit police officers as he ran with a gasoline can away from a burning house, where gas had been poured inside.

He was acquitted after state prosecutors were unable to prove that the house was a dwelling, a level of proof that the trial judge demanded but which was not required under state law.

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled 4-3 last March that Evans could nonetheless be retried because the acquittal was based on an error of law, not the facts of the alleged crime. Wednesday's decision reversed that ruling.

"The decision affirms the ancient principle that when a state puts someone on trial, we don't revisit an acquittal to see if there was a mistake and give the state another bite of the apple," David Moran, a University of Michigan law professor representing Evans, said in a phone interview.

"If the state were allowed to try people over and over again, it would be a form of government oppression," he said.

Moran said Evans is a pastor who now lives in Toledo, Ohio. Evans could not immediately be reached for comment.

Justice Samuel Alito dissented. He said since the trial judge pulled "out of thin air" a higher burden of proof, there was no actual acquittal on the crime for which Evans had been charged. Alito said Wednesday's decision deprived Michigan of its right to "one fair opportunity" at a conviction.

Timothy Baughman, chief of appeals in the Wayne County, Michigan, prosecutor's office, who argued the state's case, said he was disappointed with the decision.

He said Michigan's supreme court was mulling whether to require state judges who grant midtrial acquittals to offer prosecutors 24 hours to seek reversals. "If this rule had been in effect at the time of Evans' acquittal, we would clearly have won a stay and the trial would have resumed," Baughman said.

Joining Sotomayor's opinion were Chief Justice John Roberts, and Justices Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer and Elena Kagan.

Evans' appeal drew support from the National Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers.

The U.S. Department of Justice supported Michigan's appeal, calling the matter an "egregious case" that did not require upending decades of precedents.

The case is Evans v. Michigan, U.S. Supreme Court, No. 11-1327.

Follow us on Twitter @ReutersLegal | Like us on Facebook  


Register or log in to comment.

© 2013 Thomson Reuters