Blueford v. Arkansas (10-1320)

argument 10-1320

Blueford v. Arkansas

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 5 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 4 days ago official recording ↗

▲ 0

Transcript

jump: chapters · speakers · find in transcript

Transcript

Transcript generated automatically by AI and may contain errors.

What is the central legal issue presented in Blueford v. Arkansas?

John G. Roberts 0:01

We'll hear argument next in case ten thirteen twenty, Blueford versus Arkansas. Mr. Sloan.

Mr. Sloan 0:07

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The question in this case is whether the jury four persons announcement That the jury had voted unanimously. The petitioner was not guilty of capital murder and first degree murder has double jeopardy consequences. We respectfully submit that it does, for two reasons. First, the four persons announcement on this record establishes an acquittal. And second, Even if it is not viewed as an acquittal, under this court's well-established standard, there was not manifest necessity for a second trial on the same murder charges. With regard to the acquittal, the reasons why the four-person's announcement was an acquittal are twofold. First, the four-person's announcement was clear and explicit that the jury had voted unanimously against.

Mr. Sloan 1:03

Guilt. And second

Unknown 1:05

Is that is that altogether clear because she first uh didn't she first say that the jury cannot agree on any one charge.

Mr. Sloan 1:17

Yes, Your Honor. And then the court specifically asked what is the count on capital murder and she said unanimous against that. What is the count on first degree murder? Unanimous against that. And both the Arkansas trial court and the Arkansas Supreme Court here observed that sh uh the four person had been explicit that the jury had voted unanimously well

Unknown 1:39

that's the count. The d the jury takes lots of votes. Uh i was it Utterly clear that the jury could not go back and reconsider that? Unless that was absolutely clear, it seems to me a verdict had not been announced. She just said how we voted the last time.

Mr. Sloan 1:57

W with regard to finality, Your Honor, I think that that the jury could have changed its mind, but I want to emphasise the reason I say that, because I think it highlights something very important that is conspicuously absent here. And three brief points on that, Your Honor. First, when the four person announced that the jury had voted unanimously against guilt on the murder charges, she was announcing a jury decision. There was nothing equivocal or qualified about that. Second, Your Honor.

Unknown 2:28

W when you say she was announcing a decision, then you mean they can't go back on it.

Mr. Sloan 2:32

No. She was

Unknown 2:35

announcing a vote.

Mr. Sloan 2:37

She yes, she was announcing the decision that they had made at that point. But the reason my second point, Your Honor, the reason why I say that they could have gone back is the historic traditional principle that a jury can correct or revise a verdict while it continues to be sitting. Now in this Court's opinion in Smith versus Massachusetts, This court talked about that traditional and historic principle, cited uh an English case from eighteen twenty four, the Parkin case, where the jury had done that, had gone back after uh announcing a verdict, and how that would play out here if the jury came back and they said, you know, we were unanimous before, but now one juror says that he doesn't really agree with that, then of course a court could take that into account.

Samuel A. Alito 3:23

I think you've conceded away your case when you say that. The the one characteristic of a verdict that seems perfectly clear to me is that it is final. The jury can't Render a verdict and be discharged and then come back the next day and say, you know what, some of us, one of us has changed his mind or her mind. It's the final vote. And so why isn't the critical question here whether what the jury what the four persons said was this is our final vote, we're not gonna go back, this is it, or this is the way we voted now and it's one or more of us may have wanted to wanted to uh uh retain the right, reserve the right to go back and and and vote again.

Mr. Sloan 4:05

Because uh the the the reason why I think the announcement was an acquittal here is twofold. First there was the explicit statement of uh uh of what the the vote was uh at at that time but second There is nothing on the record in this case that contradicts that statement. At the time the jury was discharged and at the time the trial ended, the jury had said nothing that contradicted that earlier statement.