Criminal Law

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 Law

Criminal Law
U.S. Supreme Court

Kian v. State of Florida

In Kian v. State of Florida, the Supreme Court is considering whether the Sixth Amendment requires a jury to have at least twelve members.
Criminal Law
June 29, 2026

CAC Release: In Important Victory for Digital Privacy, Supreme Court Holds that Even Short-Term Police Monitoring of Cell-Phone Location Information Is Regulated by the Fourth Amendment

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Chatrie v. United States,...
By: Brian R. Frazelle
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Recognizes Clear Pathway to Habeas Relief in Mississippi Jury Race-Discrimination Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following today’s decision at the Supreme Court in Pitchford v. Cain, a...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Supreme Court Majority Rules that Judges Cannot Consider Changing Views of Crime when Reducing Sentences

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision this morning in Rutherford v. United States...
Criminal Law
May 28, 2026

CAC Release: Court’s Commitment to Text and History Falters in Compassionate Release Case

WASHINGTON, DC – Following the Supreme Court’s decision in Fernandez v. United States, a case...
Criminal Law
April 27, 2026

CAC Release: Justices Push Back Against Government’s Claim of Unrestricted Access to Cell-Phone Location Information

WASHINGTON, DC – Following oral argument at the Supreme Court this morning in Chatrie v....
By: Brian R. Frazelle