Divans v. California

Background

A defendant asked Justice Rehnquist to stop the start of a second criminal trial in Santa Clara County while the defendant sought review by the Supreme Court. The first trial ended when the trial judge declared a mistrial at the defendant’s own request. The defendant argued that the retrial would violate the protection against being tried twice for the same offense.

Reasoning

The core question was whether the Double Jeopardy Clause (the ban on trying someone twice for the same crime) prevents a retrial after a mistrial that the defendant sought. Justice Rehnquist explained that many mistrials result from ordinary error or misconduct, but double jeopardy only bars retrial when the error was committed by the prosecutor or judge for the purpose of forcing the defendant to ask for a mistrial. He quoted the rule that the Constitution protects defendants against government actions intended to provoke mistrial requests and that bad-faith conduct by a judge or prosecutor can bar retrial. The Superior Court had found the prosecutorial error here was not intended to force a mistrial, and Rehnquist concluded the Supreme Court would likely not grant review.

Real world impact

Because the court found no intentional provocation, the defendant’s request to stay the second trial was denied and the retrial may proceed. The decision emphasizes that defendants must show deliberate government provocation to use double jeopardy as a shield. This ruling is a procedural denial of a stay, not a final ruling on the entire case, so review could still be sought by petition to the Supreme Court.