October Term 2002 · Docket 01-7574

Does a default life sentence after a hung jury violate double jeopardy?

Sattazahn argues a default life sentence after a hung jury acts as an acquittal. Pennsylvania rejects this view.

Official caption
Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania
Latest argument session
Latest official Court activity
Latest verified event
Argued
Sources analyzed through
Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

  1. — An official oral-argument transcript was verified.

The arguments, in order

This case may have been argued more than once. Each entry below uses that session's official transcript. Later arguments do not erase earlier ones.

  1. Argument 1 ·

    What happened at the argument

    Srinivasan framed the core legal question for the Court.

    Dougherty argued the double jeopardy exception is limited.

    Dougherty stated the exception does not arise from the proceeding itself.

    Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details

    Sources used for this argument breakdown

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

Sattazahn seeks a new sentencing hearing. Pennsylvania wants to keep the default life sentence.

Official sources for this section

How the case got here

The Supreme Court heard oral argument in this case on November 4, 2002.

Official sources for this section

What each side wants

Sattazahn wants a new sentencing hearing.

Pennsylvania wants to keep the life sentence.

Official sources for this section

What each side says

Sattazahn claims the default sentence functions as an acquittal.

Pennsylvania claims the default sentence is not an acquittal.

Official sources for this section

What the justices asked

Chief Justice Rehnquist asked if the case is submitted.

Official sources for this section

Why it matters

This case defines the limits of double jeopardy protection. It determines when a state can retry a defendant after a hung jury.

Official sources for this section

What happens next

This article currently covers the argument record. Use the official docket link for later case activity.

Official sources for this section

Official Court provenance

Official docket and case history · Official Supreme Court oral-argument detail page

Title and summary sources

Revision history

  1. Revision 1 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Rewritten to the concise citizen-facing editorial standard.

  2. Revision 2 · Official Transcript ·

    Correction: Migrated to the dated official Court activity contract without model use.

Download this sanitized case as JSON