Divans v. California
Justice Rehnquist, acting alone as the Circuit Justice for California, refused to pause a man's upcoming retrial for murder while he pursued a double-jeopardy claim at the Supreme Court.
Rehnquist found no new evidence undermining the trial court's finding that the mistrial in the man's first trial was not caused by prosecutorial misconduct meant to force a mistrial, so he saw no likelihood the Court would take the case.
How it got here: After state courts repeatedly rejected his double jeopardy claim, the applicant asked a single Supreme Court Justice to stay his impending state court retrial.
The Case in Depth
What happened
A man facing a California murder retrial argued that the first trial's mistrial was deliberately provoked by the prosecutor to give the state a second chance to convict him, which he said would make a retrial unconstitutional double jeopardy. He had already sought and been denied stays twice before on similar grounds, and now sought a third stay based on newly claimed evidence of prosecutorial bad faith.
The question before the Court
Should a California man on trial for murder get a stay to let the Supreme Court review his claim that a second trial would violate double jeopardy?
Why it matters
The ruling means the man's murder retrial in California state court can proceed without delay. It illustrates how a single justice can resolve emergency stay requests without the full Court, and how repeated, unsupported factual claims will not overcome a trial court's factual findings.
What changes now
The stay is denied, so the retrial in the California Superior Court can proceed. This is not a final merits ruling on the double jeopardy claim itself; it only reflects one Justice's judgment that the Supreme Court is unlikely to take up the claim. The applicant could still seek review through further appeals or another stay application, but this order removes any current barrier to retrial.
What this does not decide
This order does not decide whether the applicant's double jeopardy claim is correct or whether the prosecutor actually acted in bad faith. It only addresses whether a stay of the state court retrial is warranted, based on the likelihood the full Court would grant review.
Concurrences and dissents
How the Justices voted
Majority (1). Justice Rehnquist (author).
How the Court got there
The legal reasoning, step by step
- A single Justice acting as Circuit Justice may deny a stay application when there is no reasonable probability that the full Court would grant review and reverse the lower court's ruling.
- The Justice looked to the California Superior Court's earlier factual finding that the prosecutor's error causing the mistrial was not intentionally committed to provoke the defendant into requesting a mistrial.
- The Justice examined whether the new stay application presented any actual findings — not just the applicant's own unsupported assertions — that contradicted the Superior Court's finding of no prosecutorial bad faith.
- Because the applicant offered only his own assertions and the state courts had repeatedly and summarily rejected his claim, the Justice concluded the original finding of no bad faith remained undisturbed.
- Without evidence undermining that finding, the Justice concluded the Court would be unlikely to grant certiorari on the double jeopardy claim, so a stay was unwarranted.