Sorola v. Texas: Should a Capital Murder Defendant Who Is Sentenced to Life Imprisonment Be Protected by Double Jeopardy Upon Retrial Due to Trial Court Errors?

• NCJ Number: 139239
• Journal: Criminal Justice Journal Volume: 13 Issue: 2 Dated: (Spring 1992) Pages: 319-334
• Author(s): C T Imhoof
• Date Published: 1992
• Length: 16 pages
• Publication Format: Article
• Publication Type: Legislation/Policy Analysis
• Language: English
• Country: United States of America

Annotation

This discussion of the United States Supreme Court's double jeopardy analysis in death penalty cases concludes that future Court decisions should place greater emphasis on the question of whether or not trial court errors can be corrected only by holding a second full trial with renewed fact-finding, including both the guilt or innocence phase and the sentencing phase.

Abstract

If the Court decides in any one case that a second trial is needed, the capital murder defendant should be entitled to double jeopardy protection on retrial. In the case of Sorola v. Texas, the Court let stand the appellate court holding that Sorola was not entitled to double jeopardy protection. In the Sorola case, the jury found Sorola guilty. The judge dismissed the jury and pronounced a life sentence after allowing the State to waive the death penalty. The appellate court found that the judge erred in allowing the waiver, dismissing the jury, and pronouncing the sentence himself. Justice Brennan dissented from the majority decision, finding an implied acquittal of the death sentence and supporting earlier decisions extending double jeopardy protection beyond the guilt/innocence stage of a murder trial. Similarly, future decisions should consider this issue more fully due to the devastating implications of the current position in capital murder cases. Footnotes