October Term 2011 · Docket 10-1320

Does a jury foreperson's preliminary vote announcement end double jeopardy protection?

The dispute centers on whether a foreperson's report of a unanimous not-guilty vote legally terminates jeopardy before the court accepts the final verdict.

Official caption: Blueford v. Arkansas
Latest argument session: 2012-02-22
Latest official Court activity: 2012-02-22
Latest verified event: Argued
Sources analyzed through: Official Transcript

Verified source milestones

2026-08-29 — 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.

Argument 1 · 2012-02-22

What happened at the argument
the side that brought the case's counsel argued the foreperson's announcement had double jeopardy consequences.
The state's counsel argued jeopardy had not terminated because the jury could revisit its vote.
Justice Scalia questioned whether the jury could return to reconsider the vote after the announcement.
Justice Kennedy asked if Arkansas law allowed the jury to vote again before delivering a final verdict.

Read the official transcript for this argument · Official argument details
Sources used for this argument breakdown
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 28, lines 8-18 — Transcript, file page 28, lines 8-18
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 18-1 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 18-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 3, lines 8-16 — Transcript, file page 3, lines 8-16
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 26-36 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 26-36
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 4, lines 4-8 — Transcript, file page 4, lines 4-8
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 10-14 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 10-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 5, lines 52-28 — Transcript, file page 5, lines 52-28
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 6, lines 46-1 — Transcript, file page 6, lines 46-1
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 12-14 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 12-14
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 18-24 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 18-24
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 36-42 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 36-42
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 7, lines 6-6 — Transcript, file page 7, lines 6-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 36-6 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 36-6
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 8, lines 6-12 — Transcript, file page 8, lines 6-12
- Official Supreme Court Transcript — file page 9, lines 22-46 — Transcript, file page 9, lines 22-46

A citizen's guide to the whole case

What this case is about

This case examines the precise moment when double jeopardy protection attaches during jury deliberations. The core issue is whether a foreperson's oral report of a vote constitutes a final verdict or remains a tentative step in the deliberation process. The outcome hinges on the legal definition of a verdict under state law and federal constitutional standards.