McElrath v. Georgia
View Official PDFBelow are plain-language sections to help you understand what the Court decided in McElrath v. Georgia and why it matters. Quotes are taken from the syllabus (the Court’s short summary at the start of the opinion).
Summary
A short, plain-English overview of McElrath v. Georgia.
In McElrath v. Georgia, the Supreme Court addressed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prevents retrial after a jury's acquittal by reason of insanity, despite inconsistent verdicts. The jury had found McElrath not guilty by reason of insanity for malice murder but guilty but mentally ill for other charges. The Georgia Supreme Court's decision was reversed, emphasizing the finality of an acquittal.
Holding
The single most important “bottom line” of what the Court decided in McElrath v. Georgia.
The Court held that the jury's verdict of not guilty by reason of insanity constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes, prohibiting retrial.
Constitutional Concepts
These are the Constitution-related themes that appear in McElrath v. Georgia. Click a concept to see other cases that involve the same idea.
-
Why Double Jeopardy is relevant to McElrath v. Georgia
The case primarily addresses whether the Double Jeopardy Clause prohibits retrial after an acquittal by reason of insanity, despite inconsistent verdicts.
Syllabus excerpt (verbatim)The jury's verdict that McElrath was not guilty of malice murder by reason of insanity constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes notwithstanding any inconsistency with the jury's other verdicts.
Key Quotes
Short excerpts from the syllabus in McElrath v. Georgia that support the summary and concepts above.
"The jury's verdict that McElrath was not guilty of malice murder by reason of insanity constituted an acquittal for double jeopardy purposes."
"A verdict of acquittal is final, ending a defendant's jeopardy."
"An acquittal is an acquittal, even when a jury returns inconsistent verdicts."
