DIVANS
v.
CALIFORNIA
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Divans sought a stay of retrial proceedings on double jeopardy grounds, claiming the prosecutor intentionally caused a mistrial to force him to request it, but the Supreme Court denied the stay after finding that the California Superior Court's determination that the prosecution's error was unintentional remained undisturbed by subsequent evidence and state court proceedings. The Court concluded it would not grant certiorari to review the double jeopardy claim where the trial court's factual finding regarding the prosecutor's lack of bad faith had not been contradicted.
[1] A motion to stay proceedings is denied when the applicant fails to present new evidence contradicting prior court findings that prosecutorial error was not intentional.
[2] A Circuit Justice will deny a stay of proceedings if the applicant's double jeopardy claim is unlikely to warrant review by the Supreme Court.
Previewing 2 of 4 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Mr. Justice Rehnquist, Circuit Justice.
Applicant's motion to stay the proceedings in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Cal., is denied.
In July 1977 applicant filed a similar motion for stay pending review in this Court of his claim that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the United States Constitution prohibits the State of California from retrying him for murder. In denying the stay, I noted the California Superior Court’s finding that the error resulting in the court’s mistrial declaration was not intentionally committed by the prosecution for the purpose of provoking applicant’s mistrial request. Divans v. California, 434 U. S. 1303 (1977) (in chambers). During January of last Term, both Mr. Justice Brennan and I denied applicant’s second stay application, in which he alleged that additional facts had come to light which proved that the prosecutor had acted in bad faith at the first trial.
In the instant motion applicant contends that he has acquired still more information demonstrating the prosecutor’s bad faith. Applicant presents, however, only his own assertions to this effect, and none of the moving papers before me contain any findings which contradict the Superior Court’s finding, referred to in my earlier in-chambers opinion, that the prosecutor’s error was not calculated to force applicant to move for a mistrial. On the contrary, repeated summary rejections of applicant’s claim in the California state courts indicate that the Superior Court’s original finding stands undisturbed. Accordingly, I remain convinced that this Court would not grant certiorari to review applicant’s double jeopardy claim.