Keerl v. Montana
Headline: Court upheld a state court’s decision allowing a retrial after a judge discharged a deadlocked jury, permitting states to retry defendants when judges find a reasonable probability of jury deadlock.
Holding: The Court affirmed that discharging a jury for manifest necessity does not bar a state from retrying a defendant, finding no Fourteenth Amendment deprivation where the jury was kept out over twenty-four hours and likely unable to agree.
- Allows states to retry people after judges discharge deadlocked juries.
- Affirms judges' discretion to end hung juries and order new trials.
- Limits successful claims of being tried twice when discharge was reasonably necessary.
Summary
Background
A criminal defendant at a Montana trial argued that he was deprived of liberty because the court denied his plea that he had already been in jeopardy once, invoking the Fourteenth Amendment. During the trial the judge discharged the jury after they had been kept out at least twenty-four hours, and the trial court found a reasonable probability the jury could not agree. The defendant appealed, the Supreme Court of Montana ruled against him, and the U.S. Supreme Court reviewed the federal constitutional claim.
Reasoning
The central question was whether discharging the jury and then trying the defendant again violated the Fourteenth Amendment’s protection against being deprived of liberty without due process. The Court relied on longstanding federal decisions, notably United States v. Perez, which allow retrial when a judge properly discharges a jury for manifest necessity or similar urgent reasons. The opinion explained that judges have discretion to discharge a jury when circumstances make a verdict unlikely, and such a discharge does not bar a later trial. The Court declined to decide whether the Fourteenth Amendment by itself forbids a State from putting someone in second jeopardy.
Real world impact
The ruling means state trial judges can order new trials after a jury is discharged for reasons like likely deadlock, and it upholds the Montana courts’ handling of this case. Defendants, defense lawyers, and prosecutors should expect retrials to be permitted where judges reasonably conclude juries cannot agree. Because the Court relied on settled federal practice and did not resolve broader Fourteenth Amendment questions, future cases could still revisit that unresolved constitutional issue.
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?