Martinez v. Illinois, 134 S. Ct. 2070

Martinez was indicted in August 2006 on aggravated battery and mob action; trial delayed for years due to State’s continuances and witness unavailability.
On May 17, 2010, after jury selection, the State did not present evidence and sought a continuance; the court denied further delay.
The jury was sworn and the State declined to participate; defense moved for a directed verdict of not guilty.
The court granted a directed finding of not guilty, effectively acquitting Martinez on both counts.
Illinois appellate court and Illinois Supreme Court held jeopardy did not attach or that the acquittal was not a true acquittal, respectively, prompting a certiorari grant by the U.S. Supreme Court.
The U.S. Supreme Court held that jeopardy attached when the jury was sworn and Martinez was acquitted, barring retrial.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Did jeopardy attach in Martinez’s trial?	Martinez	Illinois	Jeopardy attached when the jury was sworn; mistake prevented retrial.
Does the jeopardy bar retrial after an acquittal?	Martinez was acquitted; retrial barred	State argued no true acquittal due to lack of participation	Retrial barred because the directed verdict was an acquittal.

Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978) (jeopardy attaches when the jury is sworn; bright-line rule)
United States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 564 (1977) (clarifies when a trial begins and jeopardy attaches)
Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377 (1975) (reinforces a bright-line rule for jeopardy attachment at trial start)
Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 (1963) (jeopardy the basis for barring retrial; absence of witnesses generally not allowed to restart trial)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (discusses when double jeopardy limits retrial scenarios)