United States v. David Allen Bates Ricky Lee Archer

Ricky Lee Archer and David Allen Bates appeal the district court’s denial of a motion to dismiss indictments charging them with armed robbery. Their initial trial ended when the district court sua sponte declared a mistrial. They allege that retrial would violate the fifth amendment double jeopardy clause. We agree with defendants and reverse.

FACTS

Archer’s and Bates’s charges arise from two Modesto bank robberies. The first occurred at Guarantee Savings & Loan on November 18, 1988; the second, at First Interstate Bank, on November 28, 1988. Archer and Bates each were charged with two counts of armed robbery, two counts of using a gun while committing robbery, and one count of being a felon in possession of a firearm.

The government presented much evidence pointing to the defendants as the robbers. Several witnesses identified them from surveillance photos and in person. Other witnesses linked them to the gun and car used in the robberies. The car’s owner, who knew Archer, testified that her car had been stolen. The car was not registered to her, however, and the court struck the testimony of three witnesses who connected her to the car’s license number.

*390 On December 8,…

concurring in part and dissenting in part:

I agree with the majority that the judge abused his discretion in declaring a mistrial. However, because I do not believe that the consequence of double jeopardy ineluctably follows from a finding that the trial judge abused his discretion, I respectfully dissent. Under the circumstances of this case, the defendants’ right to have their trial completed by a particular tribunal does not outweigh the public interest in affording the prosecution one full and fair opportunity to present its case.

The irony in the majority’s result is apparent. The defendants in an armed robbery trial have been immunized from prosecution because the trial judge was erroneously overprotective of their right to a fair trial. I do not think any Supreme Court or Ninth Circuit precedent compels us to swallow such a bitter pill in this case. Instead, a result allowing the Government to reprosecute follows from Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364 , 81 S.Ct. 1523 , 6 L.Ed.2d 901 (1961), which, despite its somewhat ambiguous status, is the most applicable Supreme Court authority for this case.

*399 The Court in Gori was faced with a situation similar to ours,…

917 F.2d 388 UNITED STATES of America, Plaintiff-Appellee, v. David Allen BATES; Ricky Lee Archer, Defendants-Appellants. No. 90-10127. United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit. Argued and Submitted May 16, 1990. Decided Oct. 22, 1990. As Amended Jan. 2, 1991. Mark W. Coleman, Asst. Federal Public Defender, Fresno, Cal., for defendant-appellant David Allen Bates. E. Marshall Hodgkins, Fresno, Cal., for defendant-appellant Rick Lee Archer. Tommy Hawk, Asst. U.S. Atty., Fresno, Cal., for plaintiff-appellee. Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of California. Before CHOY and FLETCHER, Circuit Judges, and FITZGERALD, * District Judge. FLETCHER, Circuit Judge: 1 Ricky Lee Archer and David Allen Bates appeal the district court's denial of a motion to dismiss indictments charging them with armed robbery. Their initial trial ended when the district court sua sponte declared a mistrial. They allege that retrial would violate the fifth amendment double jeopardy clause. We agree with defendants and reverse. FACTS 2 Archer's and Bates's charges arise from two Modesto bank robberies. The first occurred at Guarantee Savings & Loan on November 18, 1988;…