Renico v. Lett (2009)
- Docket
- 09-338
- Decided
- 2009-01-01
Summary
Question: Did the Sixth Circuit err in holding that the Michigan Supreme Court failed to apply clearly established U.S. Supreme Court precedent when it denied relief on double jeopardy grounds after a state trial court declared a mistrial? Conclusion: Yes. The Supreme Court held that the Michigan Supreme Court's decision in this case was not unreasonable; thus, the Sixth Circuit erred in granting Mr. Lett's habeas petition. With Chief Justice John G. Roberts writing for the majority, the Court reasoned that while the trial judge in this case should have been more thorough before declaring a mistrial, the trial judge did not unreasonably apply clearly established federal law. Justice John Paul Stevens, joined by Justice Sonia Sotamayor and in part by Justice Stephen G. Breyer, dissented. Stevens argued that the trial judge's reasons for declaring a mistrial were insufficient and unreasonably complied with clearly established federal law. Therefore, the Sixth Circuit's decision should have been affirmed.