Bobby v. Bies
Justices to hear Atkins and double jeopardy case (Jan. 16, 2009)
The Supreme Court has agreed to decide review an appeals court holding that the Double Jeopardy clause bars a state from re-litigating the issue of a defendant’s mental retardation.
In October 1992, an Ohio state jury found Michael Bies guilty of kidnapping, attempted rape and murder of a 10-year-old boy. During the sentencing phase, his counsel presented evidence that Bies was mentally retarded. Nevertheless, the jury recommended the death sentence and the trial court accepted this recommendation.
A state appeals court and the Supreme Court of Ohio upheld the conviction and death sentence, but concluded that the defendant did suffer from mental retardation. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, the defense argued that because mental retardation had already been established and confirmed in previous state court proceedings, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevented the prosecution from relitigating these mental health findings.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted habeas corpus relief and ordered that a sentence other than death be imposed.
The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the determination of mental retardation was made prior to Atkins, and that the “Ohio Supreme Court had not, for Atkins purposes, conclusively determined the issue of mental retardation in its earlier opinion.”
On Jan. 16, the court accepted the case for review.
Questioned presented: Whether the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, violates the Double Jeopardy clause.
Justices rule on Atkins and double jeopardy case (June 1, 2009)
The Supreme Court today unanimously reversed and remanded an appeals court holding that the Double Jeopardy clause bars a state from re-litigating the issue of a defendant’s mental retardation.
In October 1992, an Ohio state jury found Michael Bies guilty of kidnapping, attempted rape and murder of a 10-year-old boy. During the sentencing phase, his counsel presented evidence that Bies was mentally retarded. Nevertheless, the jury recommended the death sentence and the trial court accepted this recommendation.
A state appeals court and the Ohio Supreme Court upheld the conviction and death sentence, but concluded that the defendant did suffer from mental retardation. Following the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2002 ruling in Atkins v. Virginia, the defense argued that because mental retardation had already been established and confirmed in previous state court proceedings, the Double Jeopardy Clause prevented the prosecution from relitigating these mental health findings.
In February 2008, a three-judge panel on the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit granted habeas corpus relief and ordered that a sentence other than death be imposed.
The state appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court, contending that the determination of mental retardation was made prior to Atkins, and that the “Ohio Supreme Court had not, for Atkins purposes, conclusively determined the issue of mental retardation in its earlier opinion.”
On June 1, 2009, a unanimous court reversed and remanded the case in an opinion by Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
“The Sixth Circuit, in common with the District Court, fundamentally misperceived the application of the Double Jeopardy Clause and its issue preclusion (collateral estoppel) component,” Ginsburg wrote.
Bies now has an opportunity to argue that he should not be executed because of mental retardation and the state can refute the claim.
Questioned presented: Whether the holding of a state post-conviction hearing to determine the mental capacity of a capital defendant whose death sentence was affirmed before Atkins v. Virginia (2002), which barred the execution of mentally retarded defendants, violates the Double Jeopardy clause.