Garrison v. Burt, 2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 4487

Garrison was implicated in the murders of Caswell and Emerson at Caswell's farm in 2002, with witnesses placing him at the scene and ballistics linking him to the crime.
A spent .22 shell casing matched others found at the scene and on the hood of Garrison's car; state investigators tied him to the killings.
A jailhouse witness, Martin, claimed Garrison confessed to killing the victims in a drug-dispute, creating key testimony.
At the first trial (2003), the state admitted Oxycontin-related evidence to show motive, which the defense unsuccessfully moved to suppress; on appeal, the Iowa Court of Appeals reversed for improper prejudice and remanded for a new trial.
On remand, the state avoided prior-trial references; at the second trial (2006), a prosecutor’s question about a first trial was struck, the jury instructed to disregard it, and Garrison was convicted of two counts of first-degree murder.
Garrison challenged double jeopardy, prosecutorial misconduct, and sufficiency of the evidence in subsequent federal habeas proceedings, all of which the district court denied.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Double jeopardy on retrial	Garrison asserts retrial violated double jeopardy due to prosecutor’s alleged intent to provoke mistrial.	Burt contends no such intent proven; mistrial not provoked, so retrial permissible.	No double jeopardy violation; no clear intent to provoke mistrial.
Prosecutorial misconduct at second trial	Garrison claims the redirect question about a prior trial tainted due process.	Burt argues question was vague and unlikely to imply a prior trial; no fundamental unfairness.	No due process violation; questioning did not render trial fundamentally unfair.
Sufficiency of the evidence	Garrison contends the evidence was circumstantial and weak, with credibility challenges.	Burt argues the circumstantial and eyewitness evidence, plus matched cartridge, supports guilt beyond reasonable doubt.	Evidence was constitutionally sufficient; rational juror could find guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Exhaustion of state remedies	Garrison exhausted on direct appeal; no post-conviction needed for these issues.	Burt contends exhaustion satisfied under AEDPA standards.	Exhaustion satisfied; AEDPA standard applied appropriately.

Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982) (double jeopardy exception for mistrial provocation)
United States v. Beeks, 266 F.3d 880 (8th Cir. 2001) (no mistrial bar absent intent to provoke)
Radosh, 490 F.3d 682 (8th Cir. 2007) (intent to provoke mistrial required for reprosecution)
Rousan v. Roper, 436 F.3d 951 (8th Cir. 2006) (prosecutorial conduct must be highly prejudicial to merit relief)
James v. Bowersox, 187 F.3d 866 (8th Cir. 1999) (mistrial standards and prejudice considerations)
Jackson v. Virginia, 443 U.S. 307 (1980) (sufficiency of evidence standard for due process)
Skillicorn v. Luebbers, 475 F.3d 965 (8th Cir. 2007) (credibility determinations reside with the fact-finder)
Cole v. Roper, 623 F.3d 1183 (8th Cir. 2010) (AEDPA deference and standard of review)