FOSTER, SHERIFF, Et Al. v. GILLIAM Et Al.

Background

The State of South Carolina sought relief after two people charged with murder and lynching faced a second trial following a mistrial. During the first trial there was confusion about whether photographs shown to the jury had been formally admitted, the prosecutor moved for a mistrial, and the trial court granted it. The defendants claimed double jeopardy and sought federal habeas relief after state courts declined to rule the issue in their favor. Courts below gave mixed rulings: a district court initially refused to block the retrial, a panel affirmed with one dissent, and then the full Court of Appeals temporarily enjoined the state trial and ordered a fast decision on the habeas petition. The district court then granted the writ and ordered the defendants released.

Reasoning

The core question was whether to let the interrupted state trial resume and whether to allow the defendants to be released while the State’s appeal proceeds. The Justice declined to lift the appellate court’s earlier injunction that had already interrupted the trial, noting the State had not sought relief sooner and the trial was already stopped. But the Justice found the State met the usual standards for a stay of release because the State can make a substantial case on appeal about the double jeopardy issue, and other stay factors favor continued custody. The Justice therefore stayed the part of the order that would release the defendants pending the State’s appeal.

Real world impact

As a result, the defendants remain in custody while the State’s appeal moves forward, and the interrupted state trial does not immediately resume. The ruling is procedural and temporary pending appellate review, so the ultimate outcome on retrial and double jeopardy could still change.

Dissents or concurrances

A single judge dissented earlier when a panel affirmed the district court’s refusal to enjoin the retrial, showing some disagreement among judges about the proper emergency steps.