Opinion ID: 537255
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: An Unjustified Second Bite of the Apple?

Text: 24 To avoid the consequences of the doctrine of Kennedy (that the government's conduct must have been intended to subvert the protections afforded by the Double Jeopardy Clause, Kennedy, 456 U.S. at 675-76, 102 S.Ct. at 2089-90), Goland accepts the substantive relevance of Kennedy 's treatment of prosecutorial and judicial overreaching to his case but argues that we should distinguish Kennedy from his case because of the differences in timing. In Kennedy, the prosecutor's misconduct provoked the defendant into immediately requesting, and receiving, a mistrial, while Goland did not request, nor did the court grant, a mistrial at the time of bifurcation. Goland interprets Kennedy 's substantive views on overreaching, however, to support his case. He asserts that Kennedy does not require a showing of prosecutorial bad faith or intentional misconduct and has neither attempted to establish nor established the prosecutorial intent necessary under Kennedy. 10 Goland asserts that, under Kennedy, overreaching is enough to bar his retrial. This is precisely the position, however, that the Supreme Court rejected in Kennedy. 11 Id. at 675, 102 S.Ct. at 2089. Goland cites Lovinger v. Circuit Court, 845 F.2d 739 (7th Cir.1988), nevertheless, in support of his interpretation. According to the Lovinger court, a purpose of the double jeopardy clause is to protect the defendant against the unfairness of a mistrial declaration designed to give the government a second chance to convict when the first is going badly. Id. at 743 (citing Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364, 369, 81 S.Ct. 1523, 1526, 6 L.Ed.2d 901 (1961)). Goland asserts that he too should be protected from the government's second bite. 25 Goland relies on this broad purpose statement in Lovinger to provide an opening in the Kennedy/manifest necessity framework. Lovinger 's underlying facts and reasoning, however, do not support his reliance. In Lovinger the prosecution was having a very hard time establishing a clear chain of custody over the evidence (cocaine and cannabis). Its witnesses were having recollection difficulties and were contradicting themselves on the stand during direct and cross-examination. During recesses given by the court so that the prosecution could  'get its act together,'  id. at 741, defense counsel saw the prosecutor and witnesses talking with one another, against the court's instructions. The court eventually declared a mistrial sua sponte. 12 26 The court held that when the prosecution is going badly, the trial court cannot take away what control the defendant has over the trial and declare a mistrial sua sponte when manifest necessity does not justify it. As the Court noted in Kennedy, the important consideration for double jeopardy purposes is to permit the defendant to decide what to do if the prosecution errs. 456 U.S. at 676, 102 S.Ct. at 2089. In Lovinger, the court took the defendant's control away. Lovinger could very well have been pleased with the prosecutor's hardship and have wanted to continue with the trial, since acquittal by the jury or even by the judge on a motion for acquittal was becoming more and more likely as the trial went on. See Lovinger, 845 F.2d at 744. Goland, on the other hand, retained control. He did not request a mistrial or acquittal when the claimed error occurred; and the court did not grant a mistrial. At the end of the trial, the hung jury justified the mistrial. 27 Goland claims, essentially, that under Lovinger, we should excuse him from the manifest necessity bar (if we assume no consent to the mistrial) and the Kennedy prosecutorial intent requirement (if he did consent to the mistrial). Lovinger permits neither course. Lovinger does not hold that prosecutorial overreaching is enough to bar retrial. Furthermore, because Lovinger did not request a mistrial, the seventh circuit applied the manifest necessity standard. Goland cannot rely on Lovinger to avoid that bar. 13