Go to:	Briefs Menu	Cases Pending	Cases Decided

PRICE v. VINCENT

United States Supreme Court No. 02-524

---

QUESTION PRESENTED:1. Is it clearly established by United States Supreme Court precedent that a statement by a trial court indicating an intent to grant a motion for a directed verdict on one count that was followed throughout the trial with actions inconsistent with this intent, constituted an acquittal for the purpose of the Double Jeopardy Clause?

1. Was the Michigan Supreme Court’s decision that there was no acquittal because the trial court’s statements and actions, when viewed as a whole, were insufficiently explicit to constitute an acquittal a reasonable application of the relevant clearly established double jeopardy precedents of this Court?

ORAL ARGUMENT DATE: April 21, 2003

---

INTRODUCTION

Interest of amicus curiae
Summary of facts and case
Summary of argument

Argument - Parts I - II A

I. The Sixth Circuit did not apply 28 U.S.C. § 2254(d)

II. The Michigan Supreme Court applied the relevant law that was clearly established by this Court

A. General principles

II B - Conclusion

B. The concrete rules
C. The "contrary to" clause

III. The Michigan Supreme Court reasonably applied the relevant clearly established law

Conclusion