Martinez v. Illinois

134 S. Ct. 2070 (2014)

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

D was indicted on charges of aggravated battery and mob action against Avery Binion and Demarco Scott. Illinois (P) moved to continue the case a number of times because Binion and Scott could not be found. The court again reset the trial date for May 17 and ordered Binion and Scott to appear in court on May 10. P once more issued subpoenas. On the morning of May 17, Binion and Scott were nowhere to be found. P again asked for a brief continuance. The court offered to delay swearing the jurors until a complete jury had been empaneled and told the State that it could at that point either have the jury sworn or move to dismiss its case. Binion and Scott still had not shown up after the jury was chosen. P filed a written motion for a continuance, arguing that it was “unable to proceed” without Binion and Scott. The court denied that motion. Despite more feet dragging by the court Binion and Scott were not present. The jury was then sworn. After instructing the jury, the court directed P to proceed with its opening statement. The prosecutor demurred refusing to participate in the case. D immediately motioned the court to direct findings of not guilty to both counts, aggravated battery, and mob action. P refused to respond and the court found D not guilty and dismissed the charges. P appealed. The Appellate Court held that jeopardy had never attached and that the trial court had erred in failing to grant a continuance. The Illinois Supreme Court affirmed. It reasoned that under this Court’s precedents, “‘ “rigid, mechanical” rules’” should not govern the inquiry into whether jeopardy has attached. The relevant question is whether a defendant “was ‘ “subjected to the hazards of trial and possible conviction.” ’” Despite the jury being sworn, D was never at risk of conviction. Hence, jeopardy did not attach. The dissent stated “that impaneling and swearing the jury had no legal significance” ran “contrary to well-established principles regarding double jeopardy.” D appealed.