Legal Document

538 U.S. 634 PRICE, WARDENv.VINCENT. No. 02-524. Supreme Court of United States. Argued April 21, 2003. Decided May 19, At respondent's trial on an open murder charge, defense counsel moved, at the close prosecution's case in chief and outside jury's hearing, for a directed verdict acquittal as to first-degree murder. The judge stated that second-degree was "`an appropriate charge,'" 292 F. 3d 506, 508, but agreed hear prosecutor's statement next morning. When prosecution made statement, objected, arguing court had granted its motion previous day, further would violate Double Jeopardy Clause. responded he not verdict, noted jury been told his statement. He subsequently submitted charge jury, which convicted respondent charge. Michigan Appeals reversed, concluding Clause prevented Reversing turn, State determined judge's comments were sufficiently final terminate jeopardy. Respondent then notified docket sheet entry stating: "`1 2nd degree murder,'" id., 512. refused reconsider decision. filed federal habeas petition, Federal District petition after continued violated Sixth Circuit affirmed. Held: did meet statutory requirements relief. parties do dispute underlying facts, is therefore entitled relief only if can demonstrate state court's adjudication claim "contrary to" or "unreasonable application of" this Court's clearly established precedents. 28 U. S. C. § 2254(d)(1). recited standard forgot apply it, reviewing double jeopardy question de novo. This error. A state-court decision law it "applies rule contradicts governing set forth [the Court's] cases" "confronts facts are materially indistinguishable from nevertheless arrives at" different result. Williams v. Taylor, 529 362, 405-406. Here, identified, reaffirmed principles articulated in, applicable precedents States Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 564, Smalis Pennsylvania, 476 140. Nowhere legal contrary those cases, nor confront any decided by Court. Nor application" law. That applied both conclude In reaching conclusion, addition context substance length, observed there no formal judgment order entered record. While motions rulings required finality matter law, cautioned must bear sufficient indicia concluded present here. objectively unreasonable Indeed, numerous courts have find violations under similar circumstances. Even with should be read prevent these circumstances, least reasonable otherwise. Pp. 638-643. reversed. REHNQUIST, J., delivered opinion unanimous CERTIORARI TO THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR SIXTH CIRCUIT. Arthur A. Busch argued cause petitioner. With him briefs Michael Cox, Attorney General Michigan, Thomas L. Casey, Solicitor General, Janet Van Cleve, Assistant Donald Kuebler, John Schlinker, Dale DeGarmo, Tesner. Jeffrey Lamken amicus curiae urging reversal. On brief Olson, Chertoff, Deputy Dreeben, Sri Srinivasan, Joel M. Gershowitz. David Moran, appointment Court, 537 1186, respondent. Randy E. Davidson.* CHIEF JUSTICE REHNQUIST 1 Duyonn Andre Vincent Fifth Amendment, through Fourteenth barred conviction Jones, 506 (2002). Because exceeds limits imposed review 2254(d), we certiorari, 1099 (2002), now reverse. 2 * altercation between two groups youths front high school Flint, Markeis Jones shot killed. arrested connection shooting charged hearing moved murder, insufficient evidence premeditation deliberation. stated: 3 "`[M]y impression time there's shown planning the, alleged slaying. what very best Second Degree Murder.... I think Murder defendants. Okay.'" 3d, 508. 4 Before adjourned, prosecutor asked make regarding following Ibid. it. 5 however, objected. responded, "`Oh, verdict.'" Id., 509. informed statements, said reserve ruling matter. Subsequently, permit jury. 6 appealed. People Vincent, 215 Mich. App. 458, 546 N. W. 2d 662 (1996). It "a characterization form may controlling" purposes determining whether terminated 455 110, 119, 565 629, 632 (1997) (citing 571, n. 9 (1977)). reviewed comments, constitute terminating After decision, discovered Clerk sheet: "`Motions all atts verdict. amended c[oun]t: murder.'" 512; see also Tr. Oral Arg. 7. light denied without opinion. Judgt. reported 456 1201, 568 670 (1997). 7 sought writ corpus Eastern Michigan. Clause, petition. Pet. Cert. 78a. affirmed, ensued. II 8 petitioner whose adjudicated merits unless meets 2254(d). arises out same upon based direct appeal, holding violation occurred constituted merits. Thus, claim: "(1) resulted to, involved of, States; "(2) determination presented proceeding." 10 Although standard, 510, proceeded evaluate novo rather than lens apparently because "agree[d] district acquitted [respondent] one fact." 511. consider our precedents, "based facts." Instead, declared: 11 "`[W]e bound statements examine determine resolved factual elements charge.'" 12 that, judgment, actions "constituted grant such attached," 512, 13 As above, 2254(d) either facts. bases provided We will address turn. 14 First, explained result precedent." 405-406 (2000). See Early Packer, 3, 7-8 (2002) (per curiam). identified 564 (1977), 140 (1986), "reaffirm[ed] articulated" decisions. Mich., 121, 2d, 633. Moreover, properly followed recognizing own controlling jeopardy, inquiring into "`whether [trial] judge, whatever label, actually represents resolution, correct not, some offense charged.'" 633 Linen, supra, 571). cases. unlike case, rendered clarity orders appeals taken. S., 142; 566. 15 Second, satisfy explained: 16 "[A] issue simply concludes independent [a case] incorrectly. Bell Cone, 535 685, 698-699 (2002); Williams, 411. Rather, applicant's burden show [that manner." Woodford Visciotti, 24-25 17 having recognized went actions, "further proceedings defendant's rights." doing so, goal against second acquittal. 120, 5, 633, 5; 569 (noting constitutional principle motivating prohibition multiple trials corresponding prevention oppression Government); Lockhart Nelson, 488 33, 42 (1988). considered Smalis, 18 "[T]he bars postacquittal appeal when might trial, reversal translate `further sort, devoted resolution issues going 145-146 (quoting 570). 19 Applying ("[F]urther Clause"); ("[T]he embodied within [double jeopardy] protections violated"); 127, 636 (Because "the ... lacked requisite specificity," continuation prejudice rights"). 20 "there record." Ibid.1 survive appeal." 126, 9, 636, 9. listed factors evaluating including clear record signed order," "an instruction element has dismissed judge," entry." "[E]ach case," said, "will turn particular circumstances." brought attention, adhered original defined other circumstances.2 defendant 21 relief, 22 so ordered. Notes: Briefs ofamici Texas et al. Greg Abbott, Texas, Barry R. McBee, First Jay Kimbrough, Ted Cruz, Idolina Garcia, Christopher Morano, Chief State's Connecticut, Attorneys their respective follows: William H. Pryor, Jr., Alabama, Terry Goddard Arizona, Bill Lockyer California, Ken Salazar Colorado, Jane Brady Delaware, Thurbert Baker Georgia, Mark J. Bennett Hawaii, Lawrence G. Wasden Idaho, Steve Carter Indiana, Richard P. Ieyoub Louisiana, Joseph Curran, Maryland, Reilly Massachusetts, Mike McGrath Montana, Jon Bruning Nebraska, Wayne Stenehjem North Dakota, Jim Petro Ohio, Hardy Myers Oregon, Henry Dargan McMaster South Carolina, Larry Long Shurtleff Utah; County Prosecuting Timothy Baughman; Criminal Justice Legal Foundation Kent Scheidegger Charles Hobson. ofamicus affirmance National Association Defense Lawyers Peter Henning, Robert Weisberg, Lisa B. Kemler. never discussed jury,People 114-115, 1, 631, discharged, 6, 6. noted, took place laboring mistaken facing possibility 1. InUnited LoRusso, 695 45, 54 (1982), example, held bar withdrew oral dismiss count "[w]here dismissal jury." Byrne, 203 671 (2000), Ninth found where orally acquittal, additional transcript. 674 ("[T]here announcement resume until" motion). Baggett, 251 1087, 1095 (CA6 2001) ("Byrne LoRusso stand proposition Rule 29 presence does inasmuch free change mind prior judgment"); Iovino, 524 556, 559 (R. I. 1987) (distinguishing grounds before remained impaneled adjudicate lesser included charges, faced threat reprosecution beyond already assembled case"); Sperry, 149 Ore. 690, 696, 945 546, 550 ("[U]nder circumstances here, could [its acquittal] withdraw violating" Clause).

Classification Label: 0