Double Jeopardy—Failure to Answer Special Questions

A criminal case that captured national attention last year at trial is now in front of a federal appeal court, this time raising an interesting question concerning the Constitutional procedural defense of double jeopardy.^[1] Under the principle of double jeopardy, an individual may not be retried for the same offense following a final conviction or acquittal.^[2]

In March 2005, a federal jury convicted Jamaican‑born Tyrone Williams on 38 counts of smuggling and reached a deadlock on another 20 counts, including one count that carried a possible death penalty.^[3] The government already has the right to retry Mr. Williams on the 20 counts that were left undecided. However, prosecutors are also seeking the right to retry Mr. Williams on 19 of the 38 counts for which he has already been convicted.^[4] At stake is a possible death sentence. Currently, Mr. Williams remains in federal custody pending final sentencing for his role as the driver of a truck in which 19 undocumented immigrants perished in 2003.^[5]

The core issue is one of finality of the judgment at trial. Technically, the jury verdict form that was accepted by the District Court included the word “guilty” on the verdict line for several counts, but lacked written entries on the spaces left below for findings on the related special questions.^[6]

Prosecutors argue that the failure of the jury to answer the special questions had the same legal effect of a failure to reach a verdict. To succeed, the court will have to agree that the nature of the special questions—in part, that Williams’ actions caused the deaths—goes to an essential element of the criminal offense. If so, the court may be persuaded that there was no true conviction or acquittal and that the offense is available for retrial.

The defense maintains that the failure to answer special questions—which were required in order to assess the more severe sentence—did not disturb the jury verdict of guilt or innocence on the counts in question. If the court agrees with this argument, the counts in question will be final for the purpose of double jeopardy and the request to retry these counts should be denied.

The 5th Circuit Court of Appeals heard oral arguments on this motion last Friday.^[7] Previously we discussed this case when defense attorneys requested that all of the defendant’s statements to investigators be suppressed for failure to notify Mr. Williams of his rights under the Geneva Convention on Consular Relations to speak with a consular official from his own country.

---

[1] Polly Ross Hughes, Court Weighing Effort to Retry Smuggling Case, Houston Chronicle [hereinafter Chronicle], Jan. 7, 2006.
[2] U.S. Const., amend. V: “[N]or shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb." See also Blockburger v. United States, 284 U.S. 299 (1932). Although courts have been relatively settled in applying the Blockburger “same elements” test for determining whether or not retrial is barred where equivalent offences differ only in degree of severity, here the issue has more to do with the finality of the judgment than whether the offense to be recharged is equivalent.
[3] United States Declaration of Intent to Retry Defendant Tyrone Williams on Counts 1 Through 59 and Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Rulings on Retrying Counts 21 Through 58, U.S. v. Tyrone Mapletoft Williams, (5th Cir. 2005) (No. 05-00221). See also Chronicle supra note 1.
[4] Chronicle supra note 1.
[5] Id.
[6] Verdict Form, U.S. v. Tyrone Mapletoft Williams, (5th Cir. 2005) (No. 05-00221).
[7] Chronicle supra note 1.