Hoffler v. Bezio
726 F.3d 144
2d Cir.2013Background
- Hoffler sought habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241 to block retrial for the Drabik murder after a venire oath error.
- The New York Appellate Division reversed Hoffler’s murder conviction for improper oath of the venire and remanded for a new trial.
- Hoffler had been originally convicted of first-degree witness-elimination murder in 2005 and sentenced to life without parole.
- Hoffler argued the first trial’s evidence was legally insufficient to sustain conviction and that retrial would violate double jeopardy.
- The district court held Hoffler’s jeopardy at the first trial was not terminated due to the oath error and that any sufficiency issue was harmless, allowing retrial.
- We held that a certificate of appealability is a jurisdictional prerequisite to review, granted nunc pro tunc, and affirmed the district court’s denial of the petition on the merits because the insufficiency claim is meritless.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| COA requirement for §2241 appeals | Hoffler argues no COA needed for §2241 appeal. | Respondents contend COA is required for state-prisoner §2241 appeals. | COA is required; nunc pro tunc COA granted limited to the double jeopardy/sufficiency issue. |
| Whether jeopardy attached at initial trial | Venire oath error rendered trial void and jeopardy never attached. | Initial jeopardy attached despite oath error; error voidable, not void. | Jeopardy attached; oath error did not render judgment void. |
| Necessity of ruling on sufficiency before retrial | Appellate Division’s failure to rule on sufficiency before retrial violated double jeopardy. | Any error would be harmless given sufficient record evidence. | Error deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt; no constitutional bar to retrial. |
| Sufficiency of first trial evidence | Evidence at first trial was legally insufficient to prove first-degree witness-elimination murder. | Evidence was sufficient to support a guilty verdict. | Evidence was sufficient for a rational jury to convict Hoffler beyond a reasonable doubt. |
| Appropriate scope of retrial after reversal for trial error | Retrial barred if first-trial insufficiency established; Burks rule applies to preclude retrial. | Retrial permitted after reversal for trial error if sufficient evidence exists. | Retrial permitted; sufficiency found; double jeopardy not violated. |
Key Cases Cited
- Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1 (U.S. 1978) (Double Jeopardy bars retrial when evidence is insufficient)
- Ball v. United States, 163 U.S. 662 (U.S. 1896) (distinction between void and voidable judgments)
- Benton v. Maryland, 395 U.S. 784 (U.S. 1969) (double jeopardy applies to the states; voidable vs void judgments)
- Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (U.S. 1975) (jeopardy attachment point; Sworn jury concept)
- Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317 (U.S. 1984) (limits of sufficiency review in retrial contexts)
- Wedalowski, 572 F.2d 69 (2d Cir. 1978) (trial jury oath vs voir dire oath; jeopardy attachment)
- United States v. Bruno, 661 F.3d 733 (2d Cir. 2011) (prudential ruling on reviewing sufficiency before retrial)
- Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (U.S. 2003) (jeopardy ends with judgment of acquittal; retrial rules)