Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01129/USCOURTS-caed-1_12-cv-01129-6/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 28:2254 Petition for Writ of Habeas Corpus (State)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GEORGE TYLER

Petitioner,

v.

RON BARNES, Warden,

Respondent.

Case No. 1:12-cv-01129-SKO HC

ORDER DIRECTING RESPONDENT 

TO SUPPLEMENT LODGED RECORD

Petitioner is a state prisoner proceeding pro se with a petition for writ of habeas corpus 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2254.1 Among other grounds, Petitioner contends that ineffective assistance 

of counsel violated his Sixth Amendment rights when his trial counsel failed to move for dismissal 

since retrial was barred following the grant of a mistrial to permit counsel to analyze new evidence. 

Respondent contends that since double jeopardy did not attach simply because defense counsel 

requested a mistrial to permit analysis of new evidence, the state courts did not err in deciding this 

claim against Petitioner.

"The Double Jeopardy Clause . . . does not offer a guarantee to the defendant that the State 

will vindicate its societal interest in the enforcement of the criminal laws in one proceeding." 

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667, 671-72 (1982). "If the law were otherwise, 'the purpose of the 

law to protect society from those guilty of crimes frequently would be frustrated by denying courts 

power to put the defendant to trial again.'" Id. (quoting Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684, 689 (1949)). 

 

1

Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(c)(1), both parties consented, in writing, to the jurisdiction of a United States Magistrate 

Judge to conduct all further proceedings in this case, including the entry of final judgment.

Case 1:12-cv-01129-SKO Document 36 Filed 08/18/15 Page 1 of 2
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Accordingly, "the circumstances under which a defendant may invoke the bar of double jeopardy in 

a second effort to try him are limited to those cases in which the conduct giving rise to the 

successful; motion for mistrial was intended to provoke the defendant into moving for a mistrial." 

Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 679. Petitioner contends that trial counsel's mistrial motion was occasioned by 

the prosecution's deliberate late introduction of evidence in the course of the first trial. Because the 

record lodged in this Court (Doc. 27) includes only the clerk's transcript reporting that the mistrial 

motion was granted, but not those portions of the transcript identifying the new evidence or the 

circumstances of its introduction in the course of the first trial, the Court is unable to evaluate 

whether the state court's decision was "contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, 

clearly established Federal law." Lockyer v. Andrade, 538 U.S. 63, 72 (2003). 

Accordingly, the Court hereby DIRECTS the Respondent to supplement the state record in 

the above-captioned matter, lodged in paper on May 15, 2013, with the sufficient portions of the 

transcript of trial (December 18, 2008) to permit the Court to determine whether the prosecution's 

introduction of new evidence in the course of Petitioner's first trial was intended to provoke the 

defendant into moving for a mistrial or was otherwise attributable to State misconduct. Respondent 

shall file the supplemental portions of the transcript within thirty days of this order. This order 

requires no action by Petitioner.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: August 17, 2015 /s/ Sheila K. Oberto 

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

Case 1:12-cv-01129-SKO Document 36 Filed 08/18/15 Page 2 of 2