People v. Adames, 83 N.Y.2d 92 (1993)
When a trial court vacates a jury verdict due to prosecutorial misconduct that does not intentionally provoke a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause does not bar a retrial.
Summary
Adames was convicted of drug sale and possession. His first trial ended with a guilty verdict, but the trial court vacated it due to prosecutorial misconduct. Adames argued that retrying him violated double jeopardy. The New York Court of Appeals affirmed his second conviction, holding that double jeopardy did not apply because the prosecutorial misconduct, while improper, did not force him to seek a mistrial and was more akin to trial error correctable on appeal. The court emphasized that Adames received a verdict from his initial jury, satisfying his right to have the trial completed by a particular tribunal.
Facts
Adames was arrested in a narcotics buy-and-bust operation. No drugs or buy money were found on him at the time of arrest. At his first trial, a co-defendant testified, offering an alibi. The prosecutor improperly cross-examined the co-defendant about his post-arrest silence, asking if he had told anyone he didn’t commit the crime. The trial judge sustained objections but the prosecutor persisted. During summation, the prosecutor repeatedly stated the facts were “uncontroverted,” which the court cautioned against. The trial court ultimately vacated the guilty verdict due to the prosecutor’s misconduct during cross-examination and summation.
Procedural History
1. First Trial: Adames was convicted, but the trial court vacated the verdict due to prosecutorial misconduct.
2. Motion to Dismiss: Adames moved to dismiss the indictment on double jeopardy grounds; the motion was denied.
3. Second Trial: Adames was retried and convicted.
4. Appellate Division: The Appellate Division affirmed the conviction, rejecting the double jeopardy claim.
5. Court of Appeals: The New York Court of Appeals granted leave to appeal and affirmed the Appellate Division’s order.
Issue(s)
Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial after a trial court vacates a guilty verdict due to prosecutorial misconduct, when the misconduct did not intentionally provoke a mistrial.
Holding
No, because the prosecutorial misconduct was not so egregious as to warrant a double jeopardy bar, especially since the defendant received a verdict from his initial jury. The vacatur of the verdict was more akin to a reversal on appeal for trial error, for which retrial is the appropriate remedy.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court of Appeals reasoned that the Double Jeopardy Clause protects a defendant’s right to have their trial completed by a particular tribunal. Since Adames received a jury verdict in his first trial, this right was satisfied, even though the verdict was later vacated. The court distinguished this situation from cases where a mistrial is granted due to prosecutorial misconduct designed to provoke a mistrial, referencing Oregon v. Kennedy, 456 U.S. 667 (1982). The court stated that the vacatur was “more analogous to a reversal on appeal for relatively ordinary trial error. In such instances, the double jeopardy bar to retrial should not attach and the correct and proportionate remedy should allow for retrial.” The court emphasized that the misconduct in this case, while improper, did not rise to the level of egregious conduct that would bar retrial. They stated, “Some prosecutorial error may be so egregious or provocative as to warrant the interposition of the double jeopardy bar, even when no mistrial is granted, but that is not this case.”