Green v. State
2011 Ark. 92
| Ark. | 2011Background
- Appellant charged in 2003 with four counts of capital murder and one count of kidnapping; sentenced to death and life imprisonment on related counts.
- Convictions reversed for trial error involving reputation and other bad acts evidence; remanded for new trial.
- After remand, Chad Green (son and key witness) provided a favorable statement to defense; earlier trial had him testify under a plea agreement.
- In 2010, Green’s statement exculpatory to appellant was not disclosed; defense moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds for a Brady violation.
- Circuit court denied the motion to dismiss; appellant appealed; record shows new trial granted on other grounds.
- Arkansas Supreme Court reviews double-jeopardy issue de novo and resolves that Brady remedy is typically a new trial, not dismissal.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What is the proper remedy for a Brady violation? | Green | Green | Remedy is a new trial |
| Does Oregon v. Kennedy govern when double jeopardy bars retrial for prosecutorial misconduct in this Arkansas setting? | Green | State | Kennedy not extended to bar retrial here |
| Should double jeopardy preclude retrial where a new trial has already been granted on different grounds? | Green | State | Dismissing charges not required; new trial suffices under Arkansas law |
| Should the conduct of prosecutors be referred to a professional conduct committee? | Green | State | Referral to Committee; matter reserved for discipline |
Key Cases Cited
- Buckley v. State, 2010 Ark. 154 (Ark. 2010) (reinstitution of jurisdiction for coram nobis; Brady remedy context)
- Cloird v. State, 349 Ark. 38 (Ark. 2002) (Brady violation remedy generally new trial)
- Larimore v. State, 327 Ark. 271 (Ark. 1997) (Brady-related remedy framework)
- Jackson v. State, 322 Ark. 710 (Ark. 1995) (second trial not barred where no bad faith proven)
- Espinosa v. State, 317 Ark. 198 (Ark. 1994) (Kennedy standard and discovery issues interplay)
- Timmons v. State, 290 Ark. 121 (Ark. 1986) (double jeopardy not abrogated by mistrial in misconduct)
- State v. Barton, 240 S.W.3d 693 (Mo. 2007) (extension considerations for Kennedy in Missouri context)
- State v. Morton, 283 Kan. 464 (Kan. 2007) (Kennedy requires intent to provoke mistrial for bar to retrial)
- Commonwealth v. Smith, 532 Pa. 177 (Pa. 1992) (state constitution may expand double jeopardy protections beyond Kennedy)