Alexander Aceval v. Duncan MacLaren
671 F. App'x 368
| 6th Cir. | 2016Background
- Aceval's first trial ended in a mistrial after it was revealed post-trial that the prosecutor and judge knowingly allowed witnesses to lie to conceal a confidential informant's identity. The jury and defendant were not informed of the misconduct at trial.
- Michigan scheduled a retrial before a different judge; before that retrial Aceval pleaded guilty and later challenged the retrial as a due process violation in state court and federal habeas proceedings.
- On direct review the Michigan Court of Appeals found the first-trial misconduct violated due process but held a new, fair trial was the appropriate remedy.
- Aceval sought federal habeas relief claiming retrial after the flawed first trial violated the Due Process Clause.
- The Sixth Circuit panel considered whether the Michigan Court of Appeals’ decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of clearly established federal law as required by 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)(1).
- The court concluded there is no Supreme Court precedent clearly establishing that due process forbids retrial after a mistrial for a hung jury caused by unrelated government misconduct, so habeas relief was not warranted.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether retrying Aceval after a mistrial caused by government misconduct violated due process | Retrial violated Aceval's due process rights because prosecutors and the judge knowingly allowed witnesses to lie in the first trial | Retrial after a hung-jury mistrial is permitted; a new fair trial is the appropriate remedy despite prior misconduct | The court held no clearly established Supreme Court law bars retrial in these circumstances; habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (establishes that a hung-jury mistrial does not bar retrial)
- Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (reaffirms that double jeopardy does not bar retrial after a hung jury)
- Olmstead v. United States, 277 U.S. 438 (Brandeis dissent cited regarding government malfeasance; addressed Fourth Amendment)
- Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (acknowledged Brandeis’s view was later accepted for Fourth Amendment privacy principles)
- People v. Aceval, 764 N.W.2d 285 (Mich. Ct. App.) (state court found due process violation but approved retrial as remedy)
- Aceval v. MacLaren, [citation="578 F. App'x 480"] (6th Cir.) (prior panel opinion recounting the misconduct and procedural history)