Blueford v. Arkansas

Background

A one-year-old boy suffered a fatal head injury while with his mother’s boyfriend, who was charged with capital murder and related lesser offenses. The jury was told to consider the charged crime first and then lesser included offenses in order. During deliberations the foreperson told the judge the jury was unanimously against guilt on the two murder counts, was split 9–3 on manslaughter, and had not voted on negligent homicide. The judge sent the jury back to deliberate, the jury remained deadlocked, and the judge declared a mistrial. The State sought to retry the defendant on all counts.

Reasoning

The main question was whether the foreperson’s announcement ended jeopardy for the murder counts and barred retrial. The Court held that the foreperson’s report was not final because deliberations had not concluded and jurors could have revisited their votes. The instructions did not forbid reconsideration of greater offenses after moving to lesser ones, and the trial judge did not abuse discretion in refusing partial verdict forms. Because the mistrial was proper, the Double Jeopardy Clause did not prevent a second trial on the murder charges.

Real world impact

The ruling means a state may generally retry a defendant after a jury is discharged for deadlock even when jurors earlier reported votes against some charges, so long as those statements were not final verdicts. The decision emphasizes the judge’s discretion over verdict forms and jury procedures and does not decide guilt or innocence.

Dissents or concurrances

A dissent argued the foreperson’s open-court announcement amounted to an acquittal under Arkansas’s “acquittal-first” instructions and that the judge should have preserved those votes rather than declare a mistrial.