## Facts

- Esteban Martinez was indicted in Illinois state court for aggravated battery and mob action arising from alleged offenses against Avery Binion and Demarco Scott.
- Trial was delayed for nearly four years, largely because the State repeatedly reported it could not secure the appearance of the complaining witnesses and obtained multiple continuances.
- On the scheduled trial date, the complaining witnesses again failed to appear and the State requested a brief continuance.
- The trial court offered short delays, including delaying the swearing of jurors and calling other cases, but the State did not move to dismiss.
- The jury was empaneled and sworn.
- When called to present its first witness, the State declined to offer any evidence.
- Martinez moved for a directed verdict of not guilty; the trial court granted the motion and entered a judgment of not guilty.

## Issues

1. Whether the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the State from appealing after a jury was empaneled and sworn and the trial court entered a directed verdict of not guilty because the State presented no evidence.

## Decision

- The U.S. Supreme Court unanimously reversed the judgment of the Illinois Supreme Court in a per curiam opinion.
- The Court held that jeopardy attached when the jury was empaneled and sworn.
- The Court held that the directed verdict of not guilty constituted an acquittal based on insufficiency of the evidence (here, the complete absence of evidence).
- Because the judgment was an acquittal entered after jeopardy attached, the State’s appeal seeking a new trial was barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.

## Legal Principles

- In a jury trial, jeopardy attaches when the jury is empaneled and sworn.
- An acquittal entered after jeopardy attaches—whether by jury verdict or by a trial court’s ruling that the prosecution’s evidence is insufficient—cannot be appealed by the State to obtain a retrial.
- A court may not treat attachment of jeopardy as contingent on an after-the-fact assessment of whether the defendant was “at risk of conviction” once a sworn jury has been seated.

## Conclusion

The Court held that Martinez was placed in jeopardy when the sworn jury was seated and that the trial court’s directed not-guilty judgment was an acquittal for evidentiary insufficiency, making any state appeal aimed at a retrial constitutionally prohibited.


Martinez v. Illinois, 134 S. Ct. 2070 (2014)