Opinion ID: 204774
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: The Role of Acquittals and Verdicts in Finding

Text: Double Jeopardy [1] The Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause states that “[n]o person shall . . . be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const. amend. V. In Bullington, the Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to capital-sentencing proceedings that “have the hallmarks of [a] trial on guilt or innocence.” 451 U.S. at 439. The Court explained that the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the retrial of a defendant following a determination that the “government . . . failed to prove its case[ ].” Id. at 442 (internal quotation marks omitted). The Court concluded that, although sentencing proceedings ordinarily are governed by discretionary judgments, the Double Jeopardy Clause applies to any sentencing proceeding that “explicitly requires the jury to determine whether the prosecution has ‘proved its case.’ ” Id. at 444. If a trial-like sentencing proceeding is resolved in the defendant’s favor, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars the state from subsequently seeking the same sentence, because “[a] verdict of acquittal on the issue of guilt or innocence is, of course, absolutely final.” Id. at 445. The Supreme Court applied Bullington to a judicially imposed death sentence in Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984). In Rumsey, the trial judge concluded that the state failed to prove that any statutory aggravating factors were present. Id. at 205-06. Although this conclusion was reversed HARRISON v. GILLESPIE 2393 on appeal because it was premised on legal error, the Court held that the initial finding was preclusive because “an acquittal on the merits by the sole decisionmaker in the proceeding is final and bars retrial on the same charge.” Id. at 211. Later, in Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (1986), the trial judge erroneously concluded that the state had proven its case and, accordingly, imposed the death penalty. Id. at 149. The sentence was then reversed because the judge had relied on an aggravating factor that was not adequately supported by the record. Id. at 149-50. After remand, the trial judge again imposed the death sentence, but based his conclusion on a different aggravating factor that had not initially been found at the first sentencing. Id. at 150. The Court allowed the second death sentence to stand because the defendant was sentenced to death in the first proceeding, and “the law attaches particular significance to an acquittal.” Id. at 156 (internal quotation marks omitted). Absent an “acquittal” in which the factfinder concludes that the prosecution failed to “prove[ ] its case,” the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a retrial. Id. at 156-57 (internal quotation marks omitted). [2] More recently, in Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101, 109-10 (2003), the Court addressed a petitioner’s argument that he was acquitted of the death penalty when the trial court imposed a life sentence after the jury was deadlocked. Under the state sentencing scheme at issue in that case, the trial court was required to impose a life sentence if the jury failed to render a unanimous verdict in favor of the death penalty. Id. After the underlying conviction was reversed on appeal, the state again sought the death penalty on retrial. Id. at 105. Addressing the petitioner’s claim that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the state’s second attempt to obtain the death penalty, the Court emphasized that “the touchstone for double-jeopardy protection in capital-sentencing proceedings is whether there has been an ‘acquittal.’ ” Id. at 109. The Court noted that the defendant’s life sentence had been imposed by operation of a statute rather than the jury’s factual 2394 HARRISON v. GILLESPIE conclusion that the state had not proven its case. Id. at 109-10. Absent an express or implied finding of guilt or innocence, the Court explained, a deadlocked jury is a “non-result” for double jeopardy purposes. Id. at 109. In light of the Supreme Court’s emphasis on acquittals as the “touchstone for double-jeopardy protection in capitalsentencing proceedings,” id., we proceed to an examination of the basic principles governing acquittals. We have explained that an acquittal may be either “express or implied by jury silence.” Brazzel v. Washington, 491 F.3d 976, 981 (9th Cir. 2007). By definition, an express acquittal (or “acquittal in fact”) requires that the jury return a verdict in favor of the accused. See Black’s Law Dictionary 27 (9th ed. 2009). An implied acquittal occurs “when a jury convicts on a lesser alternate charge and fails to reach a verdict on the greater charge . . . .” Brazzel, 491 F.3d at 978. The Supreme Court recently examined the circumstances in which an implied acquittal can be inferred from a jury’s findings. Yeager v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2360 (2009). The Court explained that where a jury renders a verdict on one count but is deadlocked on another count, the government is barred from relitigating factual issues that are conclusively resolved by the jury’s “valid and final judgment” as to the count on which a verdict was reached. Id. at 2367, 2370; see also Green v. United States, 355 U.S. 184, 190-91 (1957) (holding that conviction for second-degree murder operates as implied acquittal on first-degree murder count). [3] Thus, in a jury trial, an “acquittal,” whether express or implied, occurs only when the jury renders a verdict as to all or some of the charges against a defendant. Accordingly, since acquittals are the “touchstone for double-jeopardy protection in capital-sentencing proceedings,” Sattazahn, 537 U.S. at 109, then jury verdicts are an essential element in finding double jeopardy as well.5 “ ‘[A] jury has not reached a 5 There are two basic types of verdicts, general verdicts and special verdicts: HARRISON v. GILLESPIE 2395 valid verdict until deliberations are over, the result is announced in open court, and no dissent by a juror is registered.’ ” United States v. Nelson, 692 F.2d 83, 84-85 (9th Cir. 1982) (quoting United States v. Taylor, 507 F.2d 166, 168 (5th Cir. 1975)); see also United States v. Rastelli, 870 F.2d 822, 834 (2d Cir. 1989) (noting that this rule is “well established”) (collecting cases). In order to fulfill its essential functions, a jury must engage in group deliberations that result in a collective determination of guilt or innocence. See Williams v. Florida, 399 U.S. 78, 100 (1970). As then-Judge Kennedy explained for our court, the purpose of the deliberative process is to reach unanimity (or the requisite supermajority in some jurisdictions), which in turn “insure[s] that the views of each of the jurors have been fully considered and expressed.” United States v. Lopez, 581 F.2d 1338, 1342 (9th Cir. 1978). “[T]he minority view [must] be examined and, if possible, accepted or rejected by the entire jury.” Id. at 1341; see also Johnson v. Louisiana, 406 U.S. 356, 361 (1972). Because of the significance of the entire deliberative process, the jurors’ preliminary votes in the jury room do not constitute a final verdict, even if they are unanimous. United States v. Chinchic, 655 F.2d 547, 549-50 (4th Cir. 1981); see also Taylor, 507 F.2d at 168 (collecting cases). Instead, the verdict must be rendered by the jury in open court and accepted by the court in order to become final. Nelson, 692 F.2d at 84-85.6 “[I]f the jury announces only its ultimate conclusions, it returns an ordinary general verdict; if it makes factual findings in addition to the ultimate legal conclusions, it returns a general verdict with interrogatories. If it returns only factual findings, leaving the court to determine the ultimate legal result, it returns a special verdict.” Williams v. Warden, 422 F.3d 1006, 1009 (9th Cir. 2005) (quoting Zhang v. Am. Gem Seafoods, Inc., 339 F.3d 1020, 1031 (9th Cir. 2003)). 6 Under Nevada law, in cases imposing the death penalty the jury must return a “written verdict.” Nev. Rev. Stat. § 175.554(4) (“If a jury imposes a sentence of death, the jury shall render a written verdict signed by the foreman.”). 2396 HARRISON v. GILLESPIE The court may also reject the jury’s verdict if it is inconsistent or ambiguous. See, e.g., United States v. Freedson, 608 F.2d