ESTEBAN MARTINEZ v. ILLINOIS
Supreme Court of the United States, Per Curiam, Filed May 27, 2014,
Double Jeopardy- Regardless of whether the State decides to participate or not, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn
Dear prosecutors,
When given a choice between dismissing a case or empaneling a jury and then refusing to participate in the trial, don’t be complete idiots.
Thanks,
The Supreme Court of the United States
In this case, State witnesses (known felons in the area) failed to appear on multiple occasions. The trial court refused the State’s further request for postponement, but offered a body attachment and continuance. The trial court suggested that the State would have more than a day to track down the missing witnesses while other witnesses testified, but the State declined.
The court offered to delay swearing the jurors until a complete jury had been empaneled and told the State that it could at that point either have the jury sworn or move to dismiss its case.
In a questionable tactical decision given the state of the law, the State chose not to dismiss the case. Rather, the following colloquy occurred:
[The Prosecutor]: Your Honor, just so your Honor is aware, I know that it’s the process to bring [the jury] in and swear them in; however, the State will not be participating in the trial. I wanted to let you know that.
THE COURT: Very well. We’ll see how that works.”
It didn’t work very well. The State declined to present any evidence and a judgment of acquittal was granted.
Notes from the USSC on double jeopardy (consisting mainly of pointing out how obvious the answer to the underlying question was):
– “There are few if any rules of criminal procedure clearer than the rule that ‘jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.'”
– The question of double jeopardy is two-fold: did jeopardy attach? And, if so, was the trial terminated in such a manner that retrial is barred?
– “Perhaps the most fundamental rule in the history of double jeopardy jurisprudence has been that ‘[a] verdict of acquittal … could not be reviewed … without putting [a defendant] twice in jeopardy, and thereby violating the Constitution.’”
– An acquittal is not determined by the “form of the judge’s action”; it turns on whether the ruling “represents a resolution… of some or all of the factual elements of the offense charged.”