In Gouveia v. Espinda, --- F.3d ---, No. 17-16892 (9th Cir. 2019), the Court affirmed the district court's grant of habeas relief.
This is an interesting manslaughter case arising from state court in Hawaii. The trial court granted a mistrial after the jury reached a verdict
but before the verdict was announced, because jurors expressed
concern for their safety due to a "scary-looking man" in
the courtroom. The verdict reached was not guilty.
The Ninth Circuit agreed with the district court that the state court erred in finding manifest necessity for a mistrial because the jurors all said the scary man did not impact their verdict. Thus, there could be no retrial.
Procedurally, this case is very different because it was decided under 28 USC 2241, not 2254. The opinion contains extended discussions of jurisdiction, deference, and the Rooker-Feldman doctrine (under which “a federal
district court does not have subject matter jurisdiction to hear
a direct appeal from the final judgment of a state court.”)
My favorite line in the decision comes from the Court's explanation for why the doctrine has no application to this case: "it is rare that we are asked to address an argument so
transparently without merit."
