State v. Gunnell
132 Ohio St. 3d 442
| Ohio | 2012Background
- Gunnell and codefendants were indicted for murder, aggravated robbery, involuntary manslaughter, and theft after a mall theft and fatal car strike.
- Initial convictions were reversed for Batson violations.
- Second trial: juror 6 conducted outside internet research on legal terms and involuntary-manslaughter example during deliberations.
- Judge declared mistrial premised on juror misconduct without a thorough prejudice inquiry, over defense objections.
- Retrials occurred; appellate courts again reversed convictions on double-jeopardy grounds, leading to this discretionary appeal by the state.
- Court holds the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial because there was no manifest necessity for the second mistrial.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifest necessity supported the mistrial | Gunnell argued no manifest necessity; trial court erred | Gunnell contends inadequate inquiry; mistrial justified by juror misconduct | No manifest necessity; mistrial reversed |
| Whether the trial court properly evaluated juror bias | State contends deference due to minimizing bias | Court failed to rationally assess prejudice and bias | Court failed to conduct meaningful bias inquiry; abuse of discretion |
| Whether double jeopardy bars retrial without manifest necessity | Double jeopardy requires retrial analyzed under manifest-necessity standard | Prosecution bears heavy burden to show manifest necessity | Double jeopardy bars retrial due to lack of manifest necessity |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (heavy burden on prosecutor to justify mistrial when rights to jury are affected)
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (1824) (manifest-necessity standard for mistrial not mechanical)
- Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 (1973) (flexible, case-specific manifest-necessity standard)
- Smith v. Phillips, 455 U.S. 209 (1982) (courts must consider juror impartiality and credibility of juror testimony)
- Washington (Arizona v. Washington), 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (deference to trial court on bias determinations but requires rational, deliberate inquiry)