Diane Helen Mannes v. John v. Gillespie, Sheriff

Good Law
92 Daily Journal DAR 8449·967 F.2d 1310·1992 WL 136504·1992 U.S. App. LEXIS 14117·92 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 5325
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitJune 22, 199291-55336California3,205 words

Opinion

Opinion

Browning, J.

The district court issued a writ of habeas corpus “forever prohibiting” the retrial of petitioner Diane Helen Mannes on three murder charges. The state argues the district court should have abstained, and, alternatively, that the court erred in ruling retrial of Mannes for the three murders was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause. We affirm.

I

While driving under the influence of alcohol, Mannes struck five pedestrians, killing three and injuring two others. She was charged with three counts of murder (Cal. Pen.Code § 187(a)), one count of driving under the influence and causing injury (Cal.Veh.Code § 23153(a)), and one count of driving with a blood alcohol level of .10 percent or more and causing injur~,r (Cal. Veh.Code § 23153(b)).

The charges were tried in Superior Court. The jury found Mannes guilty of both charges of driving under the influence and deadlocked on the three murder charges. The trial judge accepted the guilty verdicts, declared a mistrial on the murder charges, and discharged the jury. Mannes was sentenced to four years in prison on the driving under the influence counts.

Two weeks after discharging the jury, the judge, acting on his own motion, dismissed…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.