McElrath v. Georgia (22-721)

argument 22-721

McElrath v. Georgia

Supreme Court of the United States 59 min 8 speakers 8 chapters transcribed 7 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 constitutional basis of the double jeopardy principle discussed at the start of the argument?

John G. Roberts 0:00

We'll hear argument first this morning in case twenty two seven two two two two two two two two two two two one, McElrath versus Georgia. Mr. Simpson?

Luke A. Simpson 0:08

Mr Chief Justice, and may it please the court. The most fundamental principle of double jeopardy law, going back hundreds of years before even the adoption of the Constitution Is that if a jury in a court with jurisdiction returns a verdict of acquittal, that that verdict is final, it may not be s the defendant may not be subjected to a second prosecution ever. No questions, end of discussion. This case is the paradigm in which that example applies, or that principle applies. Mr McElrath W went to trial before a jury in Georgia.

How does the Court define an acquittal and when does jeopardy terminate under Georgia law?

Luke A. Simpson 0:45

The jury found him not guilty of malice murder by reason of insanity. No one has questioned that that jury deliberated in accordance with Georgia processes. It returned a verdict in return in accordance with Georgia processes. The state and the defendant both affirmatively indicated they had no objection to the form of the verdict. The Court accepted it and entered judgment. According that is the end of it as far as the malice murder charge is concerned. The state contends that Mr. McElrath can be subject subjected to a second trial Because that acquittal is repugnant to a conviction on separate offences and this court's analysis has always been offence by offence. He was found guilty but mentally ill as to felony murder.

Luke A. Simpson 1:37

and guilty but mentally ill as to aggravated assault. This repugnant verdict exception to the double jeopardy principle does not stand, cannot withstand analysis. The state really makes two arguments. The first is that this court's inconsistent verdict cases do not apply because there are diff there's a difference between a repugnant verdict and an inconsistent verdict. And in particular that with a repugnant verdict there is no uncertainty as to what the jury did. That is wrong as a factual matter, because the uncertainty is the same. But more importantly, it does not matter because an acquittal is final. Regardless, there it does not matter why the jury reached that conclusion, the acquittal is final and conclusive.

Luke A. Simpson 2:26

I welcome the court's questions.

Clarence Thomas 2:29

Uh so y your client um filed a motion to vacate the re uh the conviction as repugnant. What is the effect uh when when a verdict is determined to be repugnant? What's the effect of that?

Luke A. Simpson 2:45

But this court has held uh it

Clarence Thomas 2:47

No, I mean the Georgia Code.

Luke A. Simpson 2:48

I Georgia. In Georgia before this case and the Turner case in the Georgia Supreme Court was is the leading example. The acquittal would stand. And the conviction would be vacated. In this case, the Georgia Supreme Court for the first time held that both the acquittal and the conviction should be vacated.

Clarence Thomas 3:09

I think the if I understand the opinion below correctly, the Georgia Supreme Court says that because of the repugnancy, there was no verdict. Uh and that's what I'm trying to understand. If you uh if d with respect to your uh motion earlier, was it your goal, was the argument that the Uh verdict was void because it was repugnant, or simply that it should be vacated because it was repugnant.

Luke A. Simpson 3:42

Our argument was that the conviction should be vacated, the convictions should be vacated because they were repugnant. Ne neither side in the in McLarrath one raised any question about the acquittal standing. So on appeal we argued to the Georgia Supreme Court you should throw out the conviction, but neither side argued that the acquittal was in question.

John G. Roberts 4:07

Well yeah. As a general matter, uh do you agree that it's a matter of state law when jeopardy terminates? Because that's the that's the f that's the basic question, right? Whether uh the defendant is being put in jeopardy more than once. So you have to have the first jeopardy terminate before you can get to the question of whether it or not he is in jeopardy a second time. As a general matter, is that a question of state law?

Luke A. Simpson 4:30

As a general matter, yes, Mr Chief Justice, but that is subject to This court making the ultimate determination as to what constitutes an acquittal. This Court has held that jeopardy terminates when there is an acquittal.