Document: Cite as: 572 U. S. ____ (2014) 1 Per Curiam SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES ESTEBAN MARTINEZ, PETITIONER v. ILLINOIS ON PETITION FOR WRIT CERTIORARI TO No. 13–5967. Decided May 27, 2014 PER CURIAM. The trial of Esteban Martinez was set to begin on 17, 2010. His counsel ready; the State not. When court swore in jury and invited pre­ sent its first witness, declined present any evidence. So moved for a directed not-guilty verdict, granted it. appealed, arguing that should have motion continuance. question is whether Double Jeopardy Clause bars State’s attempt appeal hope subjecting new trial. Illinois Supreme Court manifestly erred allowing appeal, theory jeopardy never attached because “was at risk convic­ tion.” 2013 IL 113475, ¶39, 990 N.E.2d 215, 224. Our cases repeatedly stated bright-line rule “jeopardy attaches when empaneled sworn.” Crist Bretz, 437 U.S. 28, 35 (1978); see infra, 6. There simply no doubt subjected jeopardy. And found evidence insufficient sustain conviction, there equally may not be retried. We therefore grant Martinez’s petition certiorari reverse judgment Court. I A indicted August 2006 charges aggravated battery mob action against 2 MARTINEZ Avery Binion Demarco Scott. But date did arrive nearly four years.1 story picks up purposes July 20, 2009, continue an 3 it had located complaining witnesses, subpoenaed both men days later, rescheduled September 28. sought another continuance, shortly before date, still No­ vember 9, reissued subpoenas. Novem­ ber 9 came went (the continued case showed late) eventually delayed following March 29. In early February, yet again 29 arrived, an­ other It reset 17 ordered Scott appear 10. once more issued subpoenas.2 On morning however, were nowhere found. At 8:30, begin, asked brief offered delay swearing jurors until complete been told could point either sworn or move dismiss case. shown after chosen, call docket so as bit longer. all these delays run out, sight. filed written —————— Much due his counsel. See ¶4, n. 1, 216, (summarizing lengthy procedural history). These facts are forth opinion Appellate 2011 App (2d) 100498, ¶¶5–7, 969 840, 842–843. “unable proceed” without Tr. 7. denied motion: “The began 7, 2006. two months we will then embarking upon half decade pending Class felony. Binion, Jr., [Scott] well known Elgin, convicted felons. One would believe Elgin Po­ lice Department know their whereabouts. They today. is­ sue body writs gentlemen. “In addition, list witnesses indi­ cates twelve witnesses. Excluding Mr. that’s ten antici­ pate take every today most to­ morrow get through By People chance execute arrest warrant deny swear 15, 20 minutes. Perhaps you might want send police out find gentlemen.” Id., 8–9. After recess, start several hours if continuance “be help” State. 9. made clear Scott’s “whereabouts” re­ mained “unknown,” concluded “would further waste time.” follow­ ing colloquy ensued: “THE COURT: . It’s quarter eleven [Binion Scott] appeared own will, I’m going bring now them. “[The Prosecutor]: Okay. Your Honor, ap­ proach briefly? Yes. 4 just your Honor aware, it’s process them in; par­ ticipating wanted let that. Very well. We’ll how works.” 10–11. sworn. instructing jury, proceed with opening state­ ment. prosecutor demurred: “Your respect­ fully, participating this case.” 20. defense waived statement, witness. Again, “Respectfully, matter.” Ibid. acquittal: “[Defense Counsel]: Judge, has presented they’ve indicated intention ev­ idence “Based that, ask enter findings guilty counts, ag­ gravated action. Do wish reply? No, Honor. Respectfully, participating. finding charges.” 21. B responded improper he acquit­ ted. sided State, holding failing 5 ¶¶46, 53–56, 854, 856–858. review jeop­ ardy issue affirmed. 215. by recognizing “[g]enerally, trial, sworn, defendant ‘ “put trier facts.” ’ ” ¶23, N. E. 2d, 222 (quoting Serfass United States, 420 377, 394 (1975)). reasoned under Court’s prec­ edents, “ “rigid, mechanical” rules’ govern inquiry into attached. ¶24, N.E. Serfass, supra, 390). Rather, opined, relevant “subjected hazards possible conviction.” 391). Here, concluded, conviction”—and attach— “[t]he participate prior being placed jeopardy,” held, “court’s entry di­ rected verdicts constitute true tals.” ¶40, 225. Indeed, remarked, “repeatedly referred ‘dismissal’ rather than acquittal.” Justice Burke dissented, writing majority’s conclusion “that impaneling legal significance” ran “contrary well-established prin­ ciples regarding double jeopardy.” ¶57, 227. Moreover, she argued, assertion danger conviction “belied actions prosecutor.” ¶63, 229. She explained holding, “unilaterally render ‘sham’ 6 refusing selected.” ¶64, II This presents issues. First, attach Martinez? Second, so, proceeding end such manner retrial? precedents clearly dictate affirmative answer each question. few rules criminal procedure clearer Crist, U.S., 35; also States Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, 569 (1977); 388; W. LaFave, J. Israel, King, & O. Kerr, Criminal Procedure §25.1(d) (3d ed. 2007). clearest exposition which addressed constitutionality Montana statute providing As explains, “the precise [attaches] open argument decision Downum 372 734 [(1963)],” held prevented second prosecution whose ended testimony taken.” 35. put rest: Its “nec­ essarily pinpointed stage attaches, [it] since understood explicit authority proposition misread our suggesting anything 7 bright line attaches. relied understanding mean as­ sessing applied.” 222. Under reasoned, defend­ ant functional matter does apply approach determination question, states same case: “a ‘put trial,’ “when 388. explicitly rejects id., 390 (refuting de­ fendant’s ‘constructiv[e] attached’ pretrial indictment, characterized ‘functional equivalent acquittal merits’ ”). acknowledged disparaged ‘rigid, mechanical’ interpretation Clause.” referring Somerville, 410 458 (1973), reasoning answer­ very different question: attached, but terminated (by mistrial) barred defendant’s retrial. 467. contrast, at­ taches “by means mere tech­ nicality, nor rule.” 391. contrary inter­ pretation, creates slightest about “trial” begins. error consequential, 8 introduced confusion what consistently treated rule: begins, suggested exception perceived Court—that where, circumstances particular case, genuinely conviction.3 ‘[T]he attached,’ how­ ever, ‘begins, ends, retrial.’ 390. remaining LaFave §25.1(g) (surveying retrial allowed). retrial: acquitted him charged of­ fenses. “Perhaps fundamental history jurisprudence ‘[a] verdict reviewed putting [a defendant] twice jeopardy, thereby violating Constitution.’ Linen, 571. “[O]ur defined encompass ruling prosecution’s proof estab­ lish liability offense.” Evans Michigan, 568 ___, ___ (2013) (slip op., 4–5). Some commentators limited ex­ ceptions rule—e.g., where lacks jurisdiction obtains fraud corruption. scope exceptions here. Nor need reach situation opportunity avoid consequences empaneling jury. Cf. Deems, 81 Ill. 2d 384, 387–389, 8, 10–11 (1980). Martinez, “directed counts,” “grant[ed] finding.” That textbook cannot support conviction. thought otherwise. opined “[b]ecause [Martinez] ardy, [trial] court’s acquittals.” premise argu­ ment incorrect: rea­ sons given above. “note directing guilty,” “referred precedents, immaterial: “[W]e emphasized constitutes ‘acquittal’ controlled form judge’s action”; turns “whether judge, whatever label, actually represents resolution some factual elements offense charged.” 571; Evans, 11) (“Our action, ‘serve[s]’ substantive ‘purposes’ ones”); Scott, 82, 96 (1978) (“We previously noted ‘the characterization control classification action’ “acted view failed prove 11); (“[T]he District evaluated Government’s determined legally conviction”). 10 acquitted, retry him.4 III adopted necessary unfairness prosecutors public. day acutely aware significance act give additional time num­ continuances purpose. 2. And, critically, “move [its] case” 3. Had accepted invitation, from recharging Martinez. Instead, participated selection dismissal ‘took chance[,] enter[ing] sufficient convict.’ 734, 737 (1963). knew, known, forever occurs understandable, significant conse­ quence mistake, runs directly counter protection conferred Clause. even chosen clare mistrial granting probably bar confronted precisely scenario (1963), absence generally kind ‘extraordinary striking circumstanc[e]’ exercise “discretion discharge reached verdict.” 736; Arizona Washington, 434 497, 508, 24 (1978). 11 * leave forma pauperis writ granted. judg­ reversed, remanded proceedings inconsistent opinion. ordered.

Category: 0