Benton v. Maryland (1969)

http://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/395/784/case.html

Case Briefing on the Fifth Amendment: Double Jeopardy

Title:

Benton v. Maryland (1969)

Case Facts:

Benton was tried for burglary and larceny in a Maryland state court.  The jury convicted him of burglary, but acquitted him of larceny.  Benton was sentenced to ten years in prison.  The grand and petit juries were selected under an invalid constitutional provision, so Benton was given the option of having a retrial.  Benton demanded a retrial and requested to dismiss the larceny count due to double jeopardy.  The court denied his motion and in the retrial Benton was found guilty of both charges and sentenced to fifteen years in prison.  

Legal Issue:

If Benton was tried and convicted once for burglary, was he placed twice in jeopardy in the retrial?

Decision:

Yes, the retrial was in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause and the court overturned the larceny conviction.

Reasoning:

The Supreme Court ruled the second trial was in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause.  Since there is no protection against double jeopardy in Maryland’s Constitution, the court ruled that the Double Jeopardy Clause was included in the Fourteenth Amendment under the Due Process Clause.

Conclusion:

This case is a good example of the Double Jeopardy Clause being violated.  In the first trial, Benton was acquitted of larceny but in the second trial he was convicted of the same offense.  This trial is not like Blueford v. Arkansas where this case was a mistrial due to the jury being unable to agree on a verdict. Benton’s trial was never declared a “mistrial,” he simply wanted a retrial because the jury was selected under an invalid constitutional provision. However, if his trial was declared a mistrial and the court tried Benton again for larceny, the court would not be in violation of the Fifth Amendment.

Blueford v. Arkansas

                 http://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/10-1320

Supreme Court Case Blueford v. Arkansas began in February 2012.  The state of Arkansas charged Alex Blueford for the death of a one year old child.  The charge included capital murder, first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide. The jury was presented with a verdict form that allowed the jury either to convict Blueford of one of the charged offenses, or acquit him of all charges. The jury unanimously voted against capital murder and first-degree murder but could not agree on a verdict for manslaughter and negligent homicide.  After a few hours, the jury announced they could not reach a verdict.  Since the jury could not agree on the last two charges, the judge had no choice but to declare a mistrial.  Arkansas requested to retry Blueford on all charges.  Blueford tried to get the capital murder and first-degree murder charges dismissed under the double jeopardy clause.  His motion was denied, because the Supreme Court held that the jury’s decision to acquit Blueford on capital and first-degree murder charges was “unofficial” and therefore, did not constitute a formal acquittal for double jeopardy purposes.  

Chief Justice Roberts delivered the opinion that “The Double Jeopardy Clause protects against being tried twice for the same offense. The Clause does not, however, bar a second trial if the first ended in a mistrial.”  I agree with Chief Justice Roberts, the double jeopardy clause does not apply to cases that declares a mistrial.  Since the jury did not reach a verdict of manslaughter and negligent homicide, Blueford was not convicted or acquitted of capital and first-degree murder so the judge had to declare a mistrial.  Technically Blueford was not tried since there was no official acquittal or charge against him so the double jeopardy clause would not apply in this case. 

Case Background: November 28, 2007, Alex Blueford was babysitting his girlfriend’s one year old when the child suffered a severe head injury.  Blueford says he was on his bed taking a phone call when the child waved a lit cigarette near his face and startled him, knocking the child to the floor.  The child was rushed to the hospital and a few days later died from the injuries.

Roach v. Missouri

http://www.volokh.com/wp-content/uploads/2013/06/RoachPetition.pdf

     June 28, 2013, Roach v. Missouri challenged the dual sovereignty exception to the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause.  Under this dual sovereignty exception to the Constitution, an individual may be subjected to federal and state prosecutions for the same offense.  Roach v. Missouri argues the dual sovereignty doctrine is inconsistent with the Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.  Back in 2010, Edward Roach was charged by the state for possessing a firearm as a convicted felon.  The federal court also charged Roach for the same offense.  The state court dismissed the charges once Roach pleaded guilty to the federal charge.  Missouri Court of Appeals then reversed the trial court’s decision on the basis of the dual sovereignty doctrine.

    

     This case presented an opportunity to reexamine the basis of the dual sovereignty exception on the Double Jeopardy Clause. Unfortunately on October 7, 2013, the Supreme Court denied certiorari in Roach v. Missouri.  It’s unfortunate that the Supreme Court declined the case.  The Double Jeopardy Clause exists so us Americans are not tried for the same offense twice.  Dual sovereignty contradicts the Double Jeopardy Clause and should be ruled unconstitutional.