Currier v. Virginia

138 S.Ct. 2144 (2018)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Police dredged up a safe full of guns from a river. The owner had reported it stolen from his home. It contained not just the guns but also $71,000 in cash. Most of the money was missing. The owner's nephew quickly confessed. He also claimed D was his accomplice. A neighbor also reported that she saw D leave the Garrison home around the time of the crime. A grand jury indicted D for burglary, grand larceny, and unlawful possession of a firearm by a convicted felon. D had prior convictions for burglary and larceny. P could introduce evidence of D's prior convictions to prove the felon-in-possession charge. D worried that the evidence might prejudice the jury’s consideration of the other charges. D and P agreed to a severance. The burglary and larceny charges would be tried first. The felon-in-possession charge could follow in a second trial. Some jurisdictions refuse requests like this and address the risk of prejudice with an instruction directing the jury to consider the defendant’s prior convictions only when assessing the felon-in-possession charge. Others allow parties to stipulate to the defendant’s past convictions so the particulars of those crimes don’t reach the jury’s ears. Virginia views severance requests with favor. The court granted the severance. At the first trial, D argued that the nephew lied and the neighbor was unreliable. The jury acquitted D. D then argued that holding a second trial would amount to double jeopardy. D motioned to exclude from the new proceeding any evidence about the burglary and larceny. The court replied that it could find nothing in the Double Jeopardy Clause requiring either result so it allowed the second trial to proceed without restrictions. The jury convicted D on the felon-in-possession charge. The court of appeals held that the “concern that lies at the core” of the Double Jeopardy Clause-namely, “the avoidance of prosecutorial oppression and overreaching through successive trials”-had no application because the charges were severed at D's behest. The Virginia Supreme Court affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.