## Facts

- Somerville was indicted in Illinois state court for theft.
- A jury was impaneled and sworn, and jeopardy attached.
- Before evidence was presented, the prosecutor discovered the indictment omitted an essential element of theft: intent to permanently deprive the owner of property.
- Under Illinois law, the omission made the indictment fatally defective, deprived the trial court of jurisdiction, and could not be cured by amendment; any conviction would be reversible on appeal.
- Over Somerville’s objection, the trial judge granted the prosecution’s motion for a mistrial.
- Somerville was reindicted with a corrected charge, retried, and convicted.
- Somerville obtained federal habeas relief on the theory that the second trial violated the Double Jeopardy Clause; Illinois sought review.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause bars retrial when a mistrial is declared over the defendant’s objection after jeopardy attaches because the indictment is fatally defective under state law.
2. Whether an incurable indictment defect that would nullify any conviction constitutes “manifest necessity” (or serves the “ends of public justice”) sufficient to permit retrial.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the grant of habeas relief and upheld the conviction.
- The Court held that the mistrial was supported by manifest necessity because proceeding under an incurably defective, jurisdictionally invalid indictment would defeat the ends of public justice.
- The Court found no indication the State sought the mistrial to gain a tactical advantage or to harass the defendant; the mistrial implemented a legitimate state policy of ensuring valid prosecutions and sustainable judgments.
- Dissenting Justices would have held retrial barred because the mistrial stemmed from the prosecution’s charging error after the jury was sworn.

## Legal Principles

- Jeopardy attaches in a jury trial when the jury is impaneled and sworn, but that attachment does not categorically bar termination of the trial and retrial.
- A mistrial declared over a defendant’s objection permits retrial only when justified by “manifest necessity” or when required to prevent defeat of the ends of public justice.
- An indictment defect that is incurable under state law and renders the court without jurisdiction—making any conviction automatically reversible—can supply manifest necessity for a mistrial and allow retrial on a valid indictment.
- Double jeopardy concerns are heightened when the prosecution requests a mistrial; retrial is most suspect when the mistrial is engineered to secure a tactical advantage or to burden the defendant.

## Conclusion

Because the initial indictment was incurably defective and would have rendered any conviction legally invalid, the trial court’s mistrial declaration met the manifest-necessity standard, and the Double Jeopardy Clause did not bar Somerville’s retrial and conviction under a proper indictment.


Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 (1973)