The double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment posits that the government only gets a single chance to convict a defendant of a crime. Therefore, if the jury finds a defendant not guilty, the government can not attempt to convict that defendant of the same offense again. An interesting development arises out of the case McElrath v. Georgia, where this rule sees an unusual twist.
In this specific case, the jury had to deal with a defendant, Damian McElrath, with a substantial mental health history who committed a grisly crime — stabbing and killing his mother. When presented with a myriad of charges, the jury found McElrath not guilty by reason of insanity on the most severe charge (“malice murder” under Georgia law). However, they found him guilty of the lesser charge of felony murder.
Normally, the acquittal on the malice murder charge would imply that Georgia could never try McElrath again on that particular offense. However, the Georgia Supreme Court claimed that the two verdicts were so incompatible that it could dismiss both and allow the state a second attempt at prosecuting McElrath. Given the events of Tuesday’s argument, it looks like very few, if any, of the justices are in agreement with the state’s argument.
Justice Neil Gorsuch’s ongoing and vehement insistence was particularly notable in the argument. He maintained that Georgia’s approach contradicted the Constitution and centuries of American tradition. He further expounded on the judiciary’s role in questioning the reasoning of acquittals, stating that the jury acts as a check on judges and prosecutors and that verdicts are not subject to review based on personal interpretation.
Ultimately, the justices seem to prioritize the collective decision of the jury and their right to compromise or offer leniency. This notion was exhibited in a conversation between Justice Elena Kagan and Georgia Solicitor General Stephen Petrany, with Justice Kavanaugh echoing the sentiment. Only time will tell how the Court will rule in this matter. Forecasts lean towards a unanimous opinion reversing Georgia’s decision, without addressing the validity of other hypothetical scenarios the justices mentioned during the argument. However, such projections may change depending on the Court’s final decision.
For a more detailed overview, read the full story here.