Criminal Justice

Harrison v. Gillespie

Harrison v. Gillespie raised important questions about whether the Double Jeopardy Clause entitles a defendant to ascertain whether a jury has acquitted him of a more serious sentence when the jury indicates that it is deadlocked among lesser sentences.

Case Summary

On September 9, 2011, CAC filed an amicus curiae brief in the Supreme Court in support of the Petition for a Writ of Certiorari in Harrison v. Gillespie.

James Harrison was convicted of a crime that carried the possibility of a capital sentence. During the capital sentencing phase of Harrison’s trial, the sentencing jury indicated through notes to the judge that it was no longer considering the death penalty, but that it was deadlocked between life with and life without parole. Harrison requested that the trial court poll the jury before declaring a mistrial to determine whether the jury had ruled out the death penalty. An acquittal of the capital claims would, under the Double Jeopardy Clause, have prevented the State from seeking the death penalty again during resentencing. The trial court denied Harrison’s request. On appeal, the Ninth Circuit, sitting en banc, narrowly upheld the trial court’s decision by a vote of 6-5.

CAC’s brief asked the Supreme Court to grant certiorari in this case. CAC argued that the text and history of the Double Jeopardy Clause supports allowing Harrison to poll the jury on the capital sentence given that it indicated it was no longer considering the death penalty and was only deadlocked as to the lesser sentences. The rulings to the contrary below frustrate Harrison’s right under the Double Jeopardy Clause to have his trial completed by the jury that heard the case, giving the State a constitutionally unjustified second chance to make its capital case.

On June 4, 2012, the Supreme Court denied certiorari.

Case Timeline

More from Criminal Justice

Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Timbs v. Indiana

In Timbs v. Indiana, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether state governments must comply with the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition against “excessive fines.”
Criminal Justice
U.S. District Court for the District of Massachusetts

Alasaad v. Nielsen

In Alasaad v. Nielsen, the district court for the District of Massachusetts is considering whether the First and Fourth Amendments permit law enforcement officers—without a warrant, probable cause, or even reasonable suspicion of illegal activity—to search...
Criminal Justice
November 30, 2017

Where Are We with Location Privacy? Reactions to the Supreme Court’s Oral Argument in Carpenter v. United States

Host: American Bar Association
The privacy of cell phone location information and free speech will be the focus of...
Participants: Elizabeth B. Wydra, Alan Jay Butler, Dan Schweitzer, Jake Laperruque
Criminal Justice
U.S. Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit

Walker v. City of Calhoun

In Walker v. City of Calhoun, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit is considering whether the City’s use of a secured money bail system for misdemeanor offenders violates the Equal Protection...
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Tyler v. United States

In Tyler v. United States, the Supreme Court is being asked to consider whether the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits any person from being prosecuted for the same offense more than...
Criminal Justice
U.S. Supreme Court

Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility

In Parker v. Montgomery County Correctional Facility, the Supreme Court was asked to hear a case that raises the question whether the “three strikes” provision of the Prison Litigation Reform Act prevents an indigent prisoner...