Oregon v. Kennedy
Headline: Court limits double jeopardy protection after defendant-requested mistrials, allowing retrial unless the prosecutor intended to provoke the mistrial, making it harder for defendants to block later prosecutions.
Holding: The Court held that when a defendant requests a mistrial, double jeopardy does not bar retrial unless the prosecutor deliberately intended to provoke the mistrial.
- Makes retrial more likely after defendant-requested mistrials unless intent is proved.
- Requires courts to infer prosecutor intent from objective facts and circumstances.
- Narrows broader "overreaching" standards used by some state courts.
Summary
Background
A man in Oregon was charged with stealing an oriental rug. At his first trial the State called an expert on Middle Eastern rugs. After defense questioning about a prior complaint, the prosecutor asked the witness, "Is that because he is a crook?" The defense moved for and received a mistrial. The Oregon Court of Appeals ruled that the prosecutor's conduct amounted to "overreaching" and barred a retrial, and the State appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court.
Reasoning
The Court considered whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents retrial when a defendant successfully moves for a mistrial after improper prosecutorial conduct. The Court held retrial is not barred merely because the prosecutor acted improperly; retrial is barred only when the prosecutor intended to provoke the defendant into requesting a mistrial. The majority said intent is the proper test and that courts should infer intent from objective facts and circumstances. Because the trial court found, and the appellate court accepted, that the prosecutor did not intend to cause a mistrial, the Supreme Court reversed the Oregon Court of Appeals and allowed further proceedings consistent with this rule.
Real world impact
The ruling makes it more difficult for defendants to use a successful mistrial motion to block a later trial unless they can show the prosecutor meant to force the mistrial. Trial judges will examine objective facts to decide intent. The decision narrows broader "overreaching" standards and sends the case back to state court for action under the new test.
Dissents or concurrances
Several Justices wrote separately. Justice Powell emphasized reliance on objective facts; Justice Stevens (joined by three others) objected to narrowing the exception; Justice Brennan noted state constitutional protections might still bar retrial.
Opinions in this case:
Ask about this case
Ask questions about the entire case, including all opinions (majority, concurrences, dissents).
What was the Court's main decision and reasoning?
How did the dissenting opinions differ from the majority?
What are the practical implications of this ruling?