The U.S. Supreme Court today denied cert in Woodward v. California, with Justice Sonia Sotomayor issuing a separate statement concurring in the denial “because the California Supreme Court should first address th[e] question [presented] in light of this Court’s more recent double jeopardy precedent.” And she “encourage[ed]” the state high court to do so.
Justice Sotomayor wasn’t the first reviewing court judge to make that recommendation, but so far it’s been to no avail, except for California Supreme Court Justice Kelli Evans.
Woodward came to the U.S. Supreme Court after a Sixth District Court of Appeal published opinion. The appellate court vacated the dismissal of a refiled murder case. There had been two prior hung juries and, after the second one, the trial court dismissed the case “in the furtherance of justice for insufficiency of the evidence.” The appellate court held that, under the California Supreme Court’s decision in People v. Hatch (2000) 22 Cal.4th 260, double jeopardy principles didn’t bar the refiling. Quoting Hatch, the Sixth District relied on the “default presumption”: “unless the record clearly indicates the court applied the substantial evidence standard in deciding the evidence was legally insufficient to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, ‘we will assume the court did not intend to dismiss for legal insufficiency and foreclose reprosecution.’ ” A concurring justice — Cynthia Lie — agreed that a reversal was compelled by Hatch, but otherwise would have concluded the “dismissal here [after the second mistrial] is an acquittal that bars retrial” under later U.S. Supreme Court decisions that “ ‘erode the analytical foundations’ of Hatch.” Like Justice Sotomayor today, Justice Lie “respectfully urge[d] the California Supreme Court to reexamine the continuing vitality of Hatch’s narrow definition of an acquittal under federal double jeopardy principles.”
The California Supreme Court denied review with only Justice Evans recording a vote to hear the case. (See here).
Similar to Justice Lie (and apparently also Justice Evans), Justice Sotomayor’s statement says, “There is reason to think that California’s Hatch rule, at least as applied in this case, conflicts with this Court’s double jeopardy precedents.”
There were three California Supreme Court votes for review last July in a different double jeopardy case. (See here.)
