Martinez v. Illinois - 572 U.S. 833, 134 S. Ct. 2070 (2014)

Rule:

Judicial precedent repeatedly states the bright-line rule that jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.

Facts:

The trial of Esteban Martinez was set to begin on May 17, 2010. His counsel was ready; the State was not. When the court swore in the jury and invited the State to present its first witness, the State declined to present any evidence. Martinez moved for a directed not-guilty verdict, and the court granted it. The State appealed, arguing that the trial court should have granted its motion for a continuance. Martinez responded that the State’s appeal was improper because he had been acquitted. The Illinois Appellate Court sided with the State, holding that jeopardy had never attached and that the trial court had erred in failing to grant a continuance. The Illinois Supreme Court granted review on the jeopardy issue and affirmed. Martinez moved for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and petitioned for certiorari.

Issue:

1. Did jeopardy attach to Martinez? 
2. If jeopardy attached to Martinez, did the proceeding end in such a manner that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred his retrial?

Answer:

1) Yes. 2) Yes.

Conclusion:

The court granted Martinez’s motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis and the petition for a writ of certiorari. According to the Court, the lower court misread judicial precedents in suggesting that the swearing of the jury was anything other than a bright line at which jeopardy attached. Case law simply did not apply a functional approach to the determination of when jeopardy attached. In Martinez’s case, the jury had been empaneled and sworn when the State informed the court that it was not participating in the case. Thus, Martinez had been subjected to jeopardy. The trial court's action was an acquittal because it acted on its view that the prosecution failed to prove its case. Since Martinez was acquitted, the State could not retry him.