Maurice Mason v. Betty Mitchell, 729 F.3d 545

Maurice Mason was convicted and sentenced to death in Ohio; after federal habeas proceedings, this Court granted a conditional writ vacating his death sentence unless Ohio commenced a new penalty-phase trial within 180 days of the judgment becoming final (Mason II).
The Sixth Circuit issued its opinion on October 3, 2008; mandate issued February 27, 2009, which this Court treats as the date the 180-day clock began to run.
The district court entered its own order recalculating the start date of the 180-day period (using May 6, 2009) and later stayed the period pending certiorari; the stay was lifted December 1, 2009.
The State did not commence a penalty-phase retrial within 180 days from the Sixth Circuit’s mandate; the State nevertheless vacated Mason’s death sentence on February 2, 2010 and scheduled a new sentencing hearing for February 16, 2010.
Mason moved in district court to bar the State from seeking the death penalty at the new sentencing on the ground the State failed to comply with the Sixth Circuit’s conditional writ; the district court denied relief and Mason appealed.
The Sixth Circuit held the district court erred in recalculating the 180-day start date (the mandate date controls), but under circuit precedent the State is not barred from seeking the death penalty absent extraordinary circumstances; the panel modified the judgment to allow the State to seek death only if retrial commences within 180 days of this Court’s mandate and remanded.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument (Mason)	Defendant's Argument (State)	Held
Whether the district court had jurisdiction to enforce the Sixth Circuit’s conditional writ	District court retained jurisdiction to determine compliance and sanction noncompliance	State argued federal jurisdiction ended once sentence vacated	Court: District court had jurisdiction to consider compliance with the conditional writ
When the 180-day period began to run	Begins when the judgment becomes final — i.e., when the Sixth Circuit’s mandate issued (Feb 27, 2009)	District court argued its recalculation (May 6, 2009) controlled	Court: Mandate date controls; district court erred in recalculating
Whether State’s failure to meet the 180-day deadline requires barring the death penalty at retrial	Mason: Failure to comply should bar seeking death	State: Courts should allow reprosecution; district court lacked power to bar death penalty	Court: Under precedent, barring reprosecution is warranted only for extraordinary circumstances; here none shown, so death penalty not categorically barred
Remedy and condition for reprosecution	Mason sought prohibition on seeking death	State sought ability to seek death at retrial	Court: Modified judgment — State may seek death only if penalty retrial commences within 180 days from this Court’s mandate; remanded

Mason v. Mitchell, 543 F.3d 766 (6th Cir. 2008) (granting conditional writ and setting 180-day window)
Girts v. Yanai, 600 F.3d 576 (6th Cir. 2010) (discussing limits on federal oversight after state compliance and enforcement of conditional writs)
Gentry v. Deuth, 456 F.3d 687 (6th Cir. 2006) (holding courts retain jurisdiction to determine compliance with conditional writs)
Satterlee v. Wolfenbarger, 453 F.3d 362 (6th Cir. 2006) (explaining that conditional writs give state a time window to cure and that extraordinary circumstances may justify barring reprosecution)
D’Ambrosio v. Bagley, 656 F.3d 379 (6th Cir. 2011) (explaining standards for barring reprosecution and enforcing conditional writs)
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, 537 U.S. 101 (2003) (double jeopardy analysis in capital-sentencing proceedings)
Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (1986) (double jeopardy in sentencing context)