The United States v. Josef Perez
22 U.S. 579 (1824)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
The Double Jeopardy Clause does not prohibit the retrial of a defendant if their first trial ended in a mistrial declared because of a hung jury, as this constitutes a 'manifest necessity' allowing for a second proceeding.
Facts:
- Josef Perez was placed on trial for a capital offense.
- A jury was impaneled and heard the case.
- The jury deliberated but was unable to reach a unanimous agreement on a verdict.
- Without the consent of Perez or the prosecuting attorney, the court discharged the jury from the case.
Procedural Posture:
- Josef Perez was tried for a capital offense in the U.S. Circuit Court for the Southern District of New York, a federal trial court.
- The trial resulted in a hung jury, and the court declared a mistrial.
- Perez's counsel claimed he had a right to be discharged, arguing a second trial would constitute double jeopardy.
- The judges of the Circuit Court were divided in their opinions on whether a retrial was permissible.
- The Circuit Court certified the question to the U.S. Supreme Court for resolution.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does the discharge of a jury from giving a verdict, due to their inability to agree and without the defendant's consent, bar a subsequent trial for the same offense?
Opinions:
Majority - Justice Story
No, the discharge of a jury due to its inability to reach a verdict does not bar a future trial for the same offense. The prisoner has neither been convicted nor acquitted, so jeopardy has not terminated. Courts are invested with the authority to discharge a jury from giving a verdict whenever, in their sound discretion, there is a 'manifest necessity' for the act or the ends of public justice would otherwise be defeated. A jury's inability to agree is a clear instance of such necessity. While this power must be exercised with great caution, especially in capital cases, a hung jury does not give the defendant a right to be discharged from custody, and a retrial is permissible.
Analysis:
This case is foundational in American double jeopardy jurisprudence as it establishes the 'manifest necessity' doctrine. This doctrine provides a critical exception to the principle that a defendant should not be tried twice for the same crime. By allowing retrials after a hung jury, the Court balanced the defendant's interest in finality against the public's interest in securing a just verdict. The flexible 'manifest necessity' standard grants trial judges significant discretion, and its application has been a central issue in subsequent double jeopardy cases involving other reasons for mistrials.
Unlock the full brief for The United States v. Josef Perez