The question
Whether a jury's verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity is an acquittal that bars retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause even when it is inconsistent with the jury's other verdicts.
McElrath v. Georgia
What the Court decided
The Supreme Court of Georgia's judgment was reversed. The jury's verdict finding McElrath not guilty of malice murder by reason of insanity was an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, so Georgia may not retry him on that charge despite the verdict's inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts. Once a jury renders an acquittal, the Double Jeopardy Clause bars second-guessing its basis, and whether an acquittal occurred is a question of federal law that a State's own characterization does not control.
How the justices split
UnanimousThe Court's opinion
Jackson, joined by Roberts, Thomas, Alito, Sotomayor, Kagan, Gorsuch, Kavanaugh, Barrett
A verdict of acquittal is final and bars a subsequent prosecution for the same offense. The jury's not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict on the malice-murder charge was a ruling that the prosecution's proof was insufficient to establish criminal liability, and thus an acquittal, regardless of its inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts. Whether an acquittal has occurred for double jeopardy purposes is a question of federal law, and a State's characterization of a ruling as invalid under state law does not bind the Court. The Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits second-guessing the reason for a jury's acquittal, so Georgia may not retry McElrath for malice murder.
Concurring
Alito, writing alone
Alito filed a concurring opinion. The syllabus states only that he concurred and does not set out the substance of his separate views.
How we know · 5 sourced claims
Georgia charged McElrath with malice murder, felony murder, and aggravated assault after he killed his mother.
Source: syllabus, Held
The jury returned a split verdict: not guilty by reason of insanity on malice murder and guilty but mentally ill on the other counts.
Source: syllabus, Held
The Court held that the not-guilty-by-reason-of-insanity verdict was an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes despite its inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts.
Source: syllabus, Held
Whether an acquittal has occurred for double jeopardy purposes is a question of federal law, and a State's characterization of a ruling does not bind the Court.
Source: syllabus, Held
Justice Jackson delivered the opinion for a unanimous Court, and Justice Alito filed a concurring opinion.
Source: syllabus, lineup