Ex parte Kent

Background

A man was found not guilty by reason of insanity and committed. He asked Missouri’s highest court to review the statute under which he was confined. The Missouri Supreme Court held he was improperly confined, vacated the acquittal, and remanded with instructions that if he is found mentally fit, criminal proceedings may resume. The trial court later found him competent and set a trial date, which was continued to December 3, 1973.

Reasoning

The core question is whether trying him again would violate the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy). The United States Supreme Court declined to review the case, leaving the state courts’ rulings and the order to retry in place. In a written dissent, Justice Douglas (joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall) argued the double jeopardy issue was final and properly before the high court, citing prior authority on when a state court’s rejection of a double jeopardy claim is final and reviewable.

Real world impact

Because the high court denied review, the state court’s directive that the defendant stand trial remains effective and a new criminal trial may proceed. The denial does not resolve the constitutional double jeopardy question at the national level; it leaves the issue unreviewed by the Supreme Court and subject to the state-court process and any further lower-court actions.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Douglas, joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, dissented from the denial of review and said the double jeopardy claim should have been set for argument now.