Marte v. Vance
480 F. App'x 83
2d Cir.2012Background
- Martes petitioned for habeas relief under 28 U.S.C. §2241 seeking to bar retrial on NY charges of attempted robbery
- Jury reported impasse on certain counts; trial court contemplated a partial verdict and mistrial on other counts
- Defense counsel indicated no objection to the court's plan, suggesting implicit consent to a mistrial
- New York courts found implied consent and allowed retrial; district court reviewed de novo (AEDPA not applied)
- District court denied habeas relief; the Second Circuit affirmed the denial and vacated the stay of state proceedings
- Record notes unpublished NY decisions and state appellate history are integrated to support the implicit-consent finding
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was there implicit consent to a partial mistrial? | Martes contend no explicit consent | Vance argues consent inferred from defense silence and actions | Implicit consent found |
| Was the mistrial valid under manifest-necessity? | Martes argue lack of manifest necessity | Vance maintains trial court had discretion for manifest necessity | Court relies on implicit-consent ground; does not reach manifest-necessity ruling |
| What is the proper standard of review for the §2241 petition? | Martes challenge district court de novo review | Vance argues deferential AEDPA standards apply for §2254 petitions | Court applies de novo review; still affirms denial under that standard |
Key Cases Cited
- Razmilovic, 507 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2007) (retrial permitted where mistrial due to manifest necessity; implicit consent discussed)
- Maula v. Freckleton, 972 F.2d 27 (2d Cir. 1992) (consent inferred when trial court previews actions; failure to object can bar review)
- O’Rama, 78 N.Y.2d 270 (N.Y. 1991) (discusses counsel's role in advis[ing] court on jury impasse)
- Camden v. Circuit Court of the Second Judicial Circuit, 892 F.2d 610 (7th Cir. 1989) (principles of implied consent in mistrial contexts)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1981) (trial court discretion on manifest necessity for mistrial)
- United States v. Razmilovic, 507 F.3d 130 (2d Cir. 2007) (double-jeopardy considerations and mistrial)