Harrison v. Gillespie, 640 F.3d 888

James Harrison was convicted of first-degree murder; the penalty phase ended with a deadlock on sentence.
The jury indicated deadlock over death penalty vs. life sentences; court discharged the jury without polling on death-eligibility.
Harrison sought to halt further capital proceedings via habeas; district court denied relief on double jeopardy grounds.
Nevada capital-sentencing scheme requires three steps (aggravators, weighing, final death decision) and allows life without parole if impasse occurs.
The district court decision and Nevada procedures were reviewed de novo for double jeopardy; Younger abstention did not apply.
Majority held no per se right to polling and no manifest necessity to discharge without polling; retrial on death penalty permissible.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did the trial court violate double jeopardy by not polling the jury before mistrial?	Harrison contends jury polling was required to determine death-eligibility prior to discharge.	Gillespie argues no per se polling right; manifest necessity supported discharge.	No manifest error; no per se polling right; discretion favored discharge.
Whether Nevada’s capital-sentencing regime allows a partial verdict or requires a final, unanimous death determination?	Harrison argues partial findings could yield acquittal on death-penalty eligibility.	Nevada law uses three-stage process; final sentencing decision is the only legally significant verdict.	Nevada does not recognize a partial verdict of acquittal; final sentencing decision governs.
Does the federal Constitution require polling in capital cases when the jury is deadlocked?	Constitutional right to polling to confirm death-eligibility acquittal.	No constitutional per se polling requirement; court’s discretion governs under deadlock cases.	No per se right; discretion to avoid coercion and preserve finality is endorsed.

Bullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (U.S. 1981) (acquittal touchstone in death-penalty double-jeopardy context)
Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (U.S. 1984) (acquittal precludes retrial when determined by sole decisionmaker)
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2003) (deadlock is a non-result unless death-eligibility acquittal is found)
Yeager v. United States, 129 S. Ct. 2360 (U.S. 2009) (acquittal principles inform implied acquittals in related contexts)
Renico v. Lett, 130 S. Ct. 1855 (U.S. 2010) (trial judge’s discretion in deadlock decisions; no rigid polling rule)
Washington v. United States, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (premature or coercive inquiries risk undermining juror deliberations)
Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (U.S. 1971) (manifest necessity and careful deliberation required before mistrial)
Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (U.S. 1824) (classic Perez formulation guiding manifest-necessity analysis)
Bates, 917 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1991) (judge must consider alternatives to mistrial; Bates factors)
Hollaway v. State, 6 P.3d 987 (Nev. 2000) (Nevada capital-sentencing structure; death-eligibility criteria)