Owens v. Trammell
2015 U.S. App. LEXIS 11687
| 10th Cir. | 2015Background
- Owens and Sanders planned to rob cousins Javier and Jesus; Javier was killed during the incident. Owens was charged with, among other counts, felony murder (predicated on robbery of Javier) and robbery of Javier and Jesus.
- First joint trial: jury convicted Owens of felony murder (Count II) and robbery of Jesus (Count V) but acquitted him of robbery of Javier (Count IV) and shooting Javier (Count III).
- Trial court’s felony-murder instruction was ambiguous (did not specify Javier as the required predicate) and the jury sent notes reflecting confusion about whether the predicate could be the robbery of both victims.
- Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals (OCCA) reversed the felony-murder conviction on plain-error grounds, concluding the instructional ambiguity created a substantial possibility the jury convicted based on an uncharged predicate (robbery of both) and remanded for retrial.
- On remand Owens moved to dismiss under the Double Jeopardy Clause (collateral estoppel); the trial court denied the motion, Owens was retried and reconvicted, and the OCCA rejected his collateral estoppel and same-offense arguments.
- Owens sought federal habeas relief; the district court denied it and the Tenth Circuit, applying AEDPA deference, affirmed, holding Owens had not shown the state court’s rejection of collateral estoppel was an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether inconsistent verdicts preclude collateral estoppel (Powell) | Owens: verdicts were reconcilable given instructions and jury notes, so inconsistent-verdict doctrine should not bar preclusion | State/OCCA: verdicts were inconsistent; Powell bars giving preclusive effect to an acquittal when the same jury returned inconsistent results | Court: Owens waived new reconciliation theory below; in any event Supreme Court has not clearly established how to reconcile facially inconsistent verdicts, so AEDPA bars relief |
| Whether collateral estoppel (Ashe) barred retrial on felony murder | Owens: acquittal on robbery of Javier necessarily decided he did not rob Javier, so retrial for felony murder (which required that robbery) was barred | OCCA: collateral estoppel inapplicable because inconsistency prevents knowing what the acquittal necessarily decided | Held: OCCA reasonably applied Ashe/Powell; inconsistency defeated preclusion |
| Whether continuing jeopardy doctrine permits retrial despite acquittal on predicate | Owens: continuing jeopardy should not permit retrial if collateral estoppel applies under Yeager | State/OCCA: continuing jeopardy applies to felony murder; collateral estoppel could bar retrial only if an acquittal necessarily decided an issue, which it did not here | Held: OCCA correctly allowed retrial because collateral estoppel did not apply; no conflict with Yeager |
| Whether state court decision was contrary to or an unreasonable application of Supreme Court precedent under AEDPA | Owens: OCCA’s rulings conflicted with Supreme Court holdings (Powell, Ashe, Yeager) | State/OCCA: decision fits within Powell/Ashe framework and AEDPA deference prevents federal habeas relief | Held: Under AEDPA, Owens failed to show the state court ruling was objectively unreasonable; habeas relief denied |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436 (1970) (Double Jeopardy incorporates collateral estoppel; an acquittal precludes relitigation of issues necessarily decided)
- United States v. Powell, 469 U.S. 57 (1984) (inconsistent verdicts by the same jury preclude applying collateral estoppel to acquittals)
- Yeager v. United States, 557 U.S. 110 (2009) (hung counts are "non-events"; collateral estoppel may nonetheless bar reprosecution in the continuing-jeopardy context if an acquittal necessarily decided an issue)
- Harrington v. Richter, 562 U.S. 86 (2011) (habeas relief requires showing state court decision was so lacking in justification that fairminded jurists could not agree)
- Williams v. Taylor, 529 U.S. 362 (2000) (AEDPA requires deference to state-court adjudications of federal law)
- Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342 (1990) (defendant bears burden to show issue was "necessarily decided" by prior acquittal)