McElrath v. Georgia

Background

Damian McElrath was tried in Georgia after he killed his mother and was charged with malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault. The jury found him not guilty by reason of insanity on the malice-murder count but found him guilty but mentally ill on the felony-murder and assault counts. The Georgia Supreme Court called those verdicts “repugnant,” vacated both verdicts, and allowed a retrial. McElrath argued retrial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

Reasoning

The Court considered whether the jury’s not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity finding counts as an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes even when other verdicts appear inconsistent. The justices held that an acquittal includes any ruling that the prosecution’s proof is insufficient to establish criminal liability. Labels under state law do not control this federal question. Because the jury acted as if the prosecution had failed on the malice-murder charge, that finding is an acquittal and cannot be retried.

Real world impact

The decision prevents a State from retrying a defendant on a charge that a jury found not guilty by reason of insanity, even if the same jury returned inconsistent guilty findings on related counts. Defendants who secure similar insanity-based acquittals are protected from retrial. The case leaves open how States handle related convictions vacated under their own rules and how to treat verdicts on remand for other counts.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Alito concurred, noting the ruling applies here where an acquittal was entered and appealed, and does not resolve cases where a judge rejects inconsistent verdicts and returns the jury to decide again.