WASHINGTON (CN) — Of the six petitions granted by the Supreme Court on Friday, one will determine if a Georgia man found guilty of murdering his mother must face a new trial on charges he was acquitted of.
Nine years ago, Damian McElrath was sentenced to life in prison after prosecutors found him guilty in the stabbing death of his adoptive mother Dianne McElrath in 2012.
The then 18-year-old stabbed his guardian more than 50 times. After cleaning up the scene and calling 911, McElrath told officers he killed her because he believed she had been poisoning him for years. McElrath had been hospitalized in a mental health facility a week prior and had a history of schizophrenia or a related schizoaffective disorder.
A judge later granted his motion for a new trial after concluding McElrath had unknowingly waived his right to a jury trial at the time.
In 2017, a Cobb County jury found McElrath guilty, but mentally ill, on charges of felony murder and aggravated assault. He was found not guilty of the malice murder of his mother by reason of insanity.
Attorneys for McElrath appealed his case to the Georgia Supreme Court, which vacated the verdicts after finding the jury's decision inconsistent and contradictory. The state's highest court held that the guilty but mentally ill and not guilty by reason of insanity verdicts are repugnant because “it is not legally possible for an individual to simultaneously be insane and not insane during a single criminal episode against a single victim.”
The Georgia high court vacated both the conviction and acquittal and remanded for a new trial on both charges.
McElrath argued the state can't try him again on the malice murder charge because he had been acquitted, and doing so would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.
But the Georgia Supreme Court said that does not forbid a second trial in McElrath' case, because the repugnant verdicts were “akin to a situation in which a mistrial is declared after a jury is unable to reach a verdict.”
In his petition to the Supreme Court, McElrath says the ruling conflicts with precedent the double jeopardy rule “unequivocally prohibits a second trial following an acquittal," even if the acquittal "was based upon an egregiously erroneous foundation.”
Georgia law distinguishes between merely inconsistent verdicts and repugnant verdicts. According to the Georgia Supreme Court, inconsistent verdicts involve “seemingly incompatible” conclusions, such as if a jury acquits a defendant on a predicate offense but convicts on the compound offense.
By contrast, repugnant verdicts occur when the jury must “make affirmative findings shown on the record that cannot logically or legally exist at the same time.” In that circumstance, the verdicts are “a logical and legal impossibility” and both verdicts must be vacated and remanded for a new trial under Georgia law.
"The Georgia Supreme Court’s decision stands in stark contrast by recognizing an exception to double jeopardy principles when faced with highly inconsistent verdicts — an exception that directly conflicts with this court’s precedents," Attorney Richard Simpson wrote in McElrath's petition for writ of certiorari.
An amicus brief was filed in support of the petition by the Georgia Association of Criminal Defense Lawyers, which said the state's ruling will continue to have adverse consequences for criminal defendants in Georgia if not reversed by the Supreme Court.
The justices took summer hiatus Friday afternoon and will resume hearing arguments again in October.
Follow @Megwiththenews
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
