On Point: 12. Double Jeopardy, 5th Am.

Mitchell D. Green v. Milwaukee County Circuit Court, Appeal No. 24-2980 (7th Cir. Aug. 1, 2025).

Midway through Mitchell Green’s trial, the state moved for a mistrial, and the circuit court granted the state’s motion over Green’s objection. Ultimately, the Wisconsin Supreme Court concluded that the trial judge exercised sound discretion. The 7th Circuit now holds that retrying Green would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause, as a mistrial could have been avoided; i.e., a mistrial was not “manifestly necessary.”

State v. Carl L. McAdory, 2025 WI 30, 7/1/25, case activity

A unanimous SCOW held that the circuit court had authority under Wis. Stat. 346.63(1)(c) to reinstate Carl McAdory’s conviction for operating a vehicle with a restricted controlled substance in his blood, which was dismissed when he was also convicted of operating a motor vehicle under the influence of a controlled substance that arose out of the same incident or occurrence, after the OWI conviction was vacated on appeal.  The Court also rejected McAdory’s claims that the State forfeited the right to seek reinstatement by not raising the issue on his appeal from his OWI conviction, that the circuit court did not comply with the COA’s mandate, and that he was subjected to double jeopardy.

State v. Samuel R. Osornio, 2024AP2368-CR, decision originally issued 6/25/25, subsequently withdrawn, reissued 7/18/25, District 4, (recommended for publication); case activity (including briefs)

Osornio argues that he is entitled to a new trial because the state charged him with both reckless homicide by delivery of heroin, based on allegations that he delivered heroin to A.B. and A.B. fatally overdosed on this heroin, and, separately, with delivery of the same heroin to A.B. (¶1). COA reverses, concluding that the two counts were multiplicitous, as Osornio was exposed to the potential for punishment twice for the same offense of delivering heroin to A.B. (¶3).

State v. Cesar O. Fernandez-Reyes, 2024AP1668-CR, 3/4/25, District III (not recommended for publication); case activity

COA affirms circuit court’s order declaring a mistrial and denying the defendant’s motion to bar a retrial on double jeopardy grounds where prosecutor learned she had COVID after the first day of trial.

State v. Dustin J. VanderGalien, 2023AP890-CR, 12/29/23, District 4 (recommended for publication); case activity

VanderGalien pled no contest to three counts stemming from a fatal motor vehicle crash after a non-impairing cocaine metabolite (benzoylecgonine or “BE”) was detected in his blood hours after the incident. The court of appeals rejects his facial challenge to the statute, Wis. Stat. § 340.01(50m)(c), which includes BE as a restricted controlled substance under the motor vehicle code. The court of appeals explains that “the inclusion of cocaine or any of its metabolites in the definition of a restricted controlled substance for purposes of prosecution under the Wisconsin motor vehicle code bears a rational relationship to the purpose or objective of the statutory scheme,” which is to combat drugged driving. Op., ¶30.

State v. James P. Killian, 2023 WI 52, 06/21/23, reversing a published court of appeals decision; case activity (including briefs)

The state’s threat to add new charges against Killian during a trial that ended in a mistrial didn’t expand the scope of the protection against double jeopardy to those new charges.

State v. Mitchell D. Green, 2023 WI 57, 6/29/23, review of an unpublished court of appeals decision; habeas granted, No. 24-2980; case activity (including briefs)

In yet another reversal of a defense win, a divided Court upholds the circuit court’s exercise of discretion, despite serious criticisms of the circuit court’s reasoning made by the dissenters.

Smith v. United States, USSC No. 21-1576, 2023 WL 4002949 (June 15, 2023), affirming United States v. Smith, 22 F. 4th 1236 (11th Cir. 2022); Scotusblog page (including links to briefs and commentary).

A unanimous Supreme Court holds that the Constitution does not bar retrial of a defendant whose conviction is reversed because the prosecution occurred in the wrong venue and before a jury drawn from the wrong location.

State v. Tomas Jaymitchell Hoyle, 2023 WI 24, 3/31/22, reversing an unpublished court of appeals opinion; case activity (including briefs)

This split decision is important for two reasons. First, it authorizes the State to penalize the defendant for exercising his 5th Amendment right to remain silent at trial. Second, it foreshadows how Justice Hagedorn will likely rule in cases involving a broad range of criminal and civil constitutional rights that were established after the framers wrote the United State Constitution.

State v. Lynne M. Shirikian, 2023 WI App 13; case activity (including briefs)

Shirikian pleaded to OWI as a fifth offense. Back in 2019, the legislature amended the statutes to create a both a presumptive and a mandatory minimum sentence for OWI 5th and OWI 6th. See 2019 Wis. Act 106; Wis. Stat. § 346.65(2)(am)5. The presumptive minimum requires at least 18 months of initial confinement, but the statute lets a court go lower if it finds doing so in the best interest of the community and not harmful to the public. The court of appeals now holds that even if a court decides to give less than 18 months IC, it’s still obligated to impose a bifurcated sentence. Since bifurcated sentences necessarily involve at least a year of IC, see Wis. Stat. § 973.01(2)(b), that year is the true mandatory minimum. Further, the court holds, a sentencing judge can’t avoid this minimum by imposing and staying a prison sentence and ordering of probation. Because the judge here did order probation, the court of appeals remands with directions that the lower court impose a legal sentence.