Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03370/USCOURTS-ca10-90-03370-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 530
Nature of Suit: Prisoner Petitions - Habeas Corpus
Cause of Action: 

---

, 

F !LED 

Uoited States Court of Appeals 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS Tenth Circuit 

FOR THE TENTH CIRCUIT AUG 6 1991 

MARTIN PRIEST, ) 

) 

Petitioner-Appellant, ) 

) 

v. ) 

) 

RAYMOND ROBERTS; ATTORNEY GENERAL ) 

OF KANSAS, ) 

) 

Respondents-Appellees. ) 

.ROBERT L. HOECKER 

Clerk 

No. 90-3370 

(D. C. No. 89-3363-S) 

(D. Kan.) 

ORDER AND JUDGMENT* 

Before ANDERSON, TACHA and BRORBY, Circuit Judges. 

After examining the briefs and appellate record, this panel 

has determined unanimously that oral argument would not materially 

assist the determination of this appeal. See Fed. R. App. P . 

34(a); 10th Cir. R. 34.1.9. 

submitted without oral argument. 

The cause is therefore ordered 

Mr. Priest, a state prisoner appeals, prose, the denial of 

habeas relief. 

* be 

for 

res 

This order and judgment has no precedential value and shall not 

cited, or used by any court within the Tenth Circuit, except 

purposes of establishing the doctrines of the law of the case, 

judicata, or collateral estoppel. 10th Cir. R. 36.3. 

Appellate Case: 90-3370 Document: 010110130249 Date Filed: 08/06/1991 Page: 1 
Mr. Priest was convicted of first degree murder and theft as 

a result of his third trial in state court. At his first trial, 

during closing argument, the prosecutor twice made remarks that 

both Mr. Priest and the trial court construed as comments on the 

fact that Mr. Priest had not taken the stand to testify. The 

state trial court found the state had violated Mr. Priest's right 

against self-incrimination and granted Mr. Priest's request for a 

mistrial. Over Mr. Priest's objections that retrial was barred by 

double jeopardy, a second trial was commenced. This also resulted 

in a mistrial when a juror had to be excused to tend to a family 

medical emergency. The third trial resulted in Mr. Priest's 

convictions. Mr. Priest appealed his conviction to the Supreme 

Court of Kansas who affirmed in an unpublished decision. 

Mr. Priest then filed his prose petition for habeas corpus 

relief under 28 u.s.c. § 2254. The sole issue raised by Mr. 

Priest before the United States District Court was his contention 

that the Double Jeopardy Clause prevented his retrial. Mr. Priest 

had unsuccessfully raised this issue in his direct appeal to the 

Supreme Court of Kansas. 

The district court reviewed several cases including Oregon v. 

Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982); United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 

600 (1976); United States v. McMurry, 818 F.2d 24 (10th Cir.), 

cert. denied, 484 U.S. 837, 484 U.S. 841 (1987); and United States 

v. Poe, 713 F.2d 579 (10th Cir. 1983), and concluded the Double 

-2-

Appellate Case: 90-3370 Document: 010110130249 Date Filed: 08/06/1991 Page: 2 
Jeopardy Clause does not bar a retrial when the defendant requests 

a mistrial unless the governmental misconduct intentionally goaded 

defendant into requesting a mistrial. Mr. Priest contended the 

state wanted a mistrial because the trial court refused to endorse 

a late witness for the state. The United States District Court 

observed that Mr. Priest raised this same factual argument before 

the state trial court and the state appellate court, and that both 

had rejected this argument. The district court concluded the 

underlying facts did not sufficiently establish the requisite 

prosecutorial intent to provoke Mr. Priest into moving for a 

mistrial. 

dismissed. 

Mr. Priest's request for habeas corpus relief was then 

In his appeal to this court, Mr. Priest reviews the 

transcript containing the prosecutor's improper argument and 

contends it shows the state deliberately provoked the mistrial. 

Reading the prosecutor's argument as set forth in Mr. 

Priest's brief, we have not been persuaded that these remarks 

establish the requisite prosecutorial intent. In addition, 28 

U.S.C. § 2254(d) commands that when a state court makes a factual 

determination that is evidenced by reliable and adequate written 

indicia, it is presumed to be correct. Mr. Priest thus would have 

the burden of showing the material facts were not adequately 

developed or that he did not receive a full, fair, and adequate 

hearing in the state court, or that the existence of one of the 

other grounds enumerated in 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d) exist. This, Mr. 

-3-

Appellate Case: 90-3370 Document: 010110130249 Date Filed: 08/06/1991 Page: 3 
Priest is unable to show. 

The Supreme Court, in Kennedy, ruled that prosecutorial 

intent is the key issue, and in deciding this issue we should rely 

primarily upon the objective facts and circumstances of the 

particular case. Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 675-76. In the case before 

us the state prosecutor at least had an arguable position that his 

remarks were proper. The record fails to establish the necessary 

prosecutorial intent. 

We therefore grant Mr. Priest's request for a certificate of 

probable cause as his position is at least arguable. Having done 

so, we AFFIRM the judgment of the district court for substantially 

the same reasons enunciated by the district court. 

The mandate shall issue forthwith. 

Entered for the Court: 

WADE BRORBY 

United States Circuit Judge 

-4-

Appellate Case: 90-3370 Document: 010110130249 Date Filed: 08/06/1991 Page: 4