Capital Murder

United States Supreme Court case highlight: Blueford v. Arkansas

The case dealt with the double jeopardy clause and whether it applies to partial or informal verdicts.

In Blueford, the defendant was being tried for capital murder.  The trial judge instructed the jury that if it did not find the defendant guilty of capital murder, it should consider the lesser included offense of first degree murder.  The court further instructed that if the jury did not find the defendant guilty of first degree murder, it should consider manslaughter...and so on and so forth.  After several hours of deliberations, the jury reported that it could not reach a unanimous verdict.  The judge inquired into how the voting was going and the jury reported that it had decided that the defendant was not guilty of capital murder or first degree murder, but that it could not agree on manslaughter.  The judge instructed the jury to go back and keep trying, but they were unable to break the impasse.  Accordingly, the trial judge declared a mistrial.

During the retrial for the same offense, the defendant objected on double jeopardy grounds to the charge of capital murder, arguing that the jury's informal verdict that he was not guilty of capital or first degree murder precluded him being retried for that same charge at a later trial.  The trial court disagreed, as did the appellate courts.

In a 6-3 opinion (Majority: Roberts, Scalia, Kennedy, Thomas, Breyer, Alito), the Supreme Court held that :

The Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar retrying Blueford on charges of capital murder and first-degree murder.  The jury did not acquit Blueford of capital or first-degree murder.  Blueford contends that the foreperson's report that the jury was unanimous against guilt on the murder offenses represented a resolution of some or all of the elements of those offenses in his favor.   But the report was not a final resolution of anything.  When the foreperson told the court how the jury had voted on each offense, the jury's deliberations had not yet concluded.  The jurors in fact went back to the jury room to deliberate further, and nothing in the court's instructions prohibited them from reconsidering their votes on capital and first-degree murder as deliberations continued.  The foreperson's report prior to the end of deliberations therefore lacked the finality necessary to amount to an acquittal on those offenses.  That same lack of finality undermines Blueford's reliance on Green v. United States, 355 U. S. 184, and Price v. Georgia, 398 U. S. 323.  In both of those cases, the verdict of the jury was a final decision; here, the report of the foreperson was not.

This holding appears to be consistent with Texas law, in that a jury foreperson must sign a verdict form and the court must accept the verdict, before it is given any legal significance.

Justices Sotomayer dissented (joined by Ginsberg and Kagan), and would hold that partial verdicts should be required before a mistrial is granted on the grounds of a deadlock.

The Court of Criminal Appeals does not like dog scent lineup evidence.  While it has not come right out and declared such evidence categorically inadmissible (like polygraph evidence), it seems pretty close.  With each new dog scent lineup case, we learn how unreliable this type of evidence can be.

In Winfrey v. State, the CCA overturned a capital murder conviction wherein the evidence included a dog scent lineup.  The Court noted that the dog scent lineup along with the remainder of the evidence (all of it circumstantial) was only enough to raise a "suspicion of guilt," but not enough to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.  The CCA overturned the conviction as being legally insufficient.

*Anytime we have a case involving a drug dog, we employ an expert consultant to review the dog handling technique of the officer. One of the best drug dog experts in Steve Scott with Scott's Police K9 LLC in Flower Mound, Texas.

Back in June of this year the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals addressed a case involving a conflict of interest.  Criminal defense attorneys will find that conflict issues come up frequently. The writ of mandamus that the CCA heard in this case addresses conflicts of interest and provides some assurance as to what attorney’s can do to shore up any issues they may have with conflicts.

In Bowen v. State, a writ of mandamus was filed by a defense attorney representing a client on trial for Capital Murder.  A principal witness in the case against his client was a jailhouse informant who happened to also be a former client of the defense attorney.  The State moved to disqualify the attorney arguing that his ability to cross-examine his former client would be hampered because of the past representation.  At a hearing on the State’s motion to disqualify, the attorney introduced into the record signed written waivers from both his client on trial for capital murder and the witness whom he formally represented.  The trial court granted the State’s motion to disqualify the attorney.

The Court primarily looked to the Sixth Amendment as addressed by the Supreme Court in Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988).  In Wheat, the Court emphasized the question of whether or not an actual conflict exists.  The Court held that trial courts must, “recognize a presumption in favor of [a defendant’s] counsel of choice, but that presumption may be overcome not only by a demonstration of actual conflict but by a showing of a serious potential for conflict.” Id. at 164.  In absence of an actual conflict, the court gives great weight to a waiver.

The Court in the Bowen case held that the decision to disqualify the attorney was a clear interference with the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to counsel and that there had been no evidence of the existence of an actual conflict.  Ultimately, the Court held that the waiver that had been signed was sufficient in this case to preclude disqualification of the attorney.

It is a “must” in the defense world to obtain waivers when facing potential conflicts of interest.  Even in a Capital Murder case, a waiver can be effective to disclaim the conflict.  This case does not make waivers the "end-all, be-all," but it does show the legal world that the court will give great deference to waivers and a defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to the counsel of their choice.

Yesterday, the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals released a published opinion (In Re Bowen) in an original mandamus proceeding. The relators (i.e. petitioners), two capital murder defendants, requested that the CCA direct the trial judge to rescind his order disqualifying the relators’ mutually retained counsel of choice. The State had moved that the counsel be disqualified due to a perceived conflict of interest and the fact that he would be called to cross-examine another one of his clients (a witness that the State intended to call).

The two defendants and the other client had all signed waivers regarding the actual or apparent conflict, but that did not satisfy the trial judge. In granting the State’s motion to disqualify the counsel, the trial judge stated:

It’s really about the integrity of the judicial process and the public’s perception of the judicial process and what it would look like to go to a trial on a capital murder case where the same attorney representing both defendants is also representing one of the prosecution’s witnesses.

He went on:

I know how these things play out. I’m telling you I can see some reporter that doesn’t understand diddly about what’s going on in the trial but, you know, can pick up an issue like this and make a story out of it.

Surely he doesn’t mean me. I’m confident that I at least know diddly about the system, if not more.

In the mandamus proceeding, the CCA was called upon to overturn the trial court’s order. Citing the U.S. Supreme Court case, Wheat v. United States, 486 U.S. 153 (1988), the CCA explained that trial courts “must recognize a presumption in favor of a defendant’s counsel of choice.” The CCA also noted that “when a trial court unreasonably or arbitrarily interferes with the defendant’s right to choose counsel, its actions rise to the level of a constitutional (6th Amendment) violation.”

The CCA emphasized that conflict of interest cases really turn on the facts found by the trial court. In this case, the trial defense counsel offered a sealed affidavit explaining why his mutual representation would not amount to a conflict. He did not share his reasoning in open court for fear that the State would then know what he had up his sleeve. Once the CCA examined the defense counsel’s affidavit, it was convinced that there was no conflict (especially since all parties waived any potential conflict). Accordingly, the CCA held that the trial judge had violated the defendants' 6th Amendment right to counsel and directed that the judge rescind his order.