WPC .-:+)O;ntLb ob5Ǚǐu$-N SŌt":s0J"xkĘӱ⭵o~<tl#>D)<p@fkɫ3obyO4! VMg|p gtG:Ο{c>rY:\rБeLf 9@MꙖ2nMn~OXQtb+ N&2Meݷ6/`ͮP2'610 Q(6MAިlm1K \hzjlLy!zݓ }FQnq g'Χ3c7T?@QJ9YӮ^=R^Á2\T<1r>͆cLuQX0Dh'I j"]NW5IFuͭnJ m,2fq5 ;kg'N&:Gqn9].NaDžg#U0N % 0:SUBpw4 mUH 0xO 0r90A 0o3! 0! 0DU""[%VX&(, 0eH- -Z156[[9=}? 0F6C 0A|C 0TC D 0)D BHD eD +zDjD^ GG VG9AH \zII zzKEKKKK zLnM xkOO zbQNQQQ \R*S zBTT zUUUNV VW~tW zXnlY hZiB[ ^\I ] `R^ j^^^ 0_ 0L_L_L_|_ VL` P`` lb {b zc Xd Nmdd veNf zgNh lgi ji'=j zdk1k zm jm 6mmm )n \5oRo zp \]q>q prHgs vt=%u jbvQv zxx hyz f6{{ v| f1}#} z~ j4 j f X V݁3 dK v΄΄΄΄΄΄΄D v_Ն n faLj Z߉9 lP pӌ,C zo ^ jG lː7 Vr ^[ b& z------------------- < 8 N͘8 zS͚ \ f> 0*Ԝ z jx d[ V@ \ r jAcrobat PDFWriter0(9 Z6Times New Roman RegularX(+$  Xh XXXz `*Times New RomanTTz, pk3|x/U  -+> Z0Book Antiqua RegularV :footnote texfootnote text  XXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW  `:footnote reffootnote referenceXXXW\  `*Times New RomanTTW        W\  `*Times New RomanTTW  $  Xi-XXX P  T   2    _ڗ XXi-Inthepenaltyphase,theCommonwealthhadsoughttoproveone  aggravatingcircumstance:thatthedefendantcommittedthekillingwhilein y theperpetrationofafelony,_ . _42_Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(d)(6).Thedefensesoughtto B provetwomitigatingcircumstances:thedefendantslackofasignificant  [ historyofpriorcriminalconvictionsandhisageatthetimeofthecrime.#Xi-X ڗ#  $  Xi-XXX P  T   3    _ڗ XXi-UnderPennsylvanialaw,_Sattazahn_sconvictionsforsecondand  thirddegreemurdermerged,forsentencingpurposes,withhisfirstdegree y murderconviction. 7 Commonwealthv.Williams,521Pa.556,559A.2d25 B (1989).Fortheremainingcrimesofwhichhehadbeenfoundguilty,he  [ receivedaconsecutiveaggregatesentenceof12to24yearsimprisonment. $ #Xi-X ڗ#  $  Xi-XXX P  T   4    _ڗ XXi-ReviewbythePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtisdiscretionary.  _ ? __Pa.R.A.P._Ԁ1112,42_Pa.C.S._ԀTheCommonwealthfiledapetitionforallowance y ofappealinthatcourtand_Sattazahn_Ԁcrosspetitioned.Initially,thecourt B grantedtheCommonwealthspetitionanddenied_Sattazahn_scrosspetition.  [ _ A _Commonwealthv._Sattazahn_,537Pa.639,644A.2d162(1994).Afterbriefs $ werefiledandargumentheld,thecourtdismissedtheCommonwealths  appealasimprovidentlygranted._ C _Commonwealthv._Sattazahn_,539Pa.270, f  652A.2d293(1994).#Xi-X ڗ# 7 $  Xi-XXX P  T   5    _ڗ XXi-TheCommonwealthsnoticeaddedtheaggravatingcircumstance  foundat_ G _42_Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(d)(9), thatthedefendanthadasignificanthistory y offelonyconvictionsinvolvingtheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson.#Xi-X ڗ#(G3$ !  XpXXX  (c(2$ !  XpXXX   P  T   0  (#$  0    $  Xi-XXX P  T   1    _ X*XXXi-  X X*HammerwasalsochargedinthekillingofRichardBoyerand  pleadguiltytothirddegreemurder,robberyandrelatedchargesfor  whichhewassentencedtoanaggregatesentenceof19to55years Z imprisonmentonFebruary7,1992.Hewasawitnessforthe / Commonwealthinitscaseagainst_Sattazahn_.#ڗ   ##Xi-X ڗ# $  Xi-XXX P  T   8     S ڗ XXi-42Pa.C.S.9711(d)(6)#Xi-X ڗ# L $  Xi-XXX P  T   9     X*XXXi-  X X*[Amotionformistrial]bythedefendantisdeemedtobea  deliberateelectiononhisparttoforgohisvaluedrighttohavehisguilt  orinnocencedeterminedbeforethefirsttrieroffact.  UnitedStatesv.  Scott,437U.S.at93# X*X  ##Xi-XX X*֎#.  $  Xi-XXX P  T   6    _ڗ XXi-Thejuryfoundthefollowingaggravatingcircumstances:thatthe  defendantcommittedthemurderwhileintheperpetrationofafelony, S 42 y _Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(d)(6),andthatthedefendanthadasignificanthistoryoffelony B convictionsinvolvingtheuseorthreatofviolencetotheperson, T 42_Pa.C.S._  [ 9711(d)(9).Italsofoundthesemitigatingcircumstances:thetestimonyof $ _Sattazahn_smotherandemployerandhispleaofguiltytothirddegree  murder._J.A._,8788.#Xi-X ڗ#I., II.,Level 1Level 2Level 3Level 4Level 54#-2Quick I.  .0   $  Xi-XXX P  T   10    ڗ XXi-   ڗThisCourthasrecognizedboththattheobjectofthejury  systemistosecureunanimityamongthejurorsbasedonthe  comparisonofviewandargumentamongthejurors,andthat ...ina Z capitalsentencingproceeding,theGovernmenthasastronginterest /  inhavingthejuryexpresstheconscienceofthecommunityonthe r ultimatequestionoflifeordeath.Therefore,thisCourthasapproved G theuseofasupplementalchargetoencourageajurywhoreportsa  deadlocktoengageinfurtherdeliberations.  ԀJonesv.UnitedStates,527  U.S.373,382(1999)#ڗ   ##Xi-X ڗ#. P $  Xi-XXX P  T   11    ' (XXX'  X*XXXi-  X X*9711.Sentencingprocedureformurderofthefirstdegree   T   (a)Procedureinjurytrials.    T 0    (1)Afteraverdictofmurderofthefirstdegreeis r recordedandbeforethejuryisdischarged,thecourt G shallconductaseparatesentencinghearinginwhich l thejuryshalldeterminewhetherthedefendantshall A besentencedtodeathorlifeimprisonment.# X*X  ##Xi-XX X*ֵ#  $  Xi-XXX P  T   7    _ڗ XXi-InPennsylvania,capitalcasesareappealeddirectlytothe  PennsylvaniaSupremeCourt._ X _42_Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(h)(1).#Xi-X ڗ#  $  Xi-XXX P  T   12     X*XXXi-  X X*TheCommonwealthmaydeterminethatthereareno  aggravatingcircumstancesinaparticularcaseandthuschoosenotto  seekthedeathpenalty.ThatdecisionistheCommonwealthsdecision Z tomake.See  Commonwealthv.Buck,551Pa.184,190,709A.2d892,895 / 96(1998).# X*X  ##Xi-XX X*֋# Q $  Xi-XXX P  T   13     X*XXXi-  X X*(c)Instructionstothejury.    T   ***0  0\***0\\0 ***f   ' (X<XX' T 0   ` (iv)theverdictmustbeasentenceofdeathifthe ` juryunanimouslyfindsatleastoneaggravating 5 circumstancespecifiedinsubsection(d)andno   mitigatingcircumstanceorifthejuryunanimously   findsoneormoreaggravatingcircumstanceswhich d  outweighanymitigatingcircumstances.Theverdict 9   mustbeasentenceoflifeimprisonmentinallother  ^  cases. 3  42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)(iv).# X*X  ##Xi-XX X*֎#  $  Xi-XXX P  T   14     X*XXXi-  X X*  Rule358AofthePennsylvaniaRulesofCriminalProcedure  wasadoptedFebruary1,1989,effectiveJuly1,1989,andwas  renumberedas  Rule807,effectiveApril1,2001.# X*X  ##Xi-XX X*֋# s $  Xi-XXX P  T   15     X*XXXi-  X X*(c)Instructionstothejury.    T   ***0  0\***0\\0 ***f    T 0  (v)thecourtmay,initsdiscretion,dischargethejury ` ifitisoftheopinionthatfurtherdeliberationwillnot 5 resultinaunanimousagreementastosentence,in   whichcasethecourtshallsentencethedefendantto   lifeimprisonment.d   l 42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)(v)# X*X  ##Xi-XX X*֎#($    (Vm$0   (,!$0  0` (#(#  $%( $ d'Cases'Statutes & Rules   " '  0 .   a-L  !XpXXX  _ XXp42_Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(d)(6)#XpX J#-42 Pa.C.S.  9711(d)(6)Statutes & Rules / !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X.42_Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(c)(1)(v)#&%% &[J##XpX%&i#/42 Pa.C.S.  9711(c)(1)(v)Statutes & Rules  !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X.Commonwealthv._Sattazahn_, r   428_Pa.Super_.413,631A.2d597(1993)#&%% &[M##XpX%&l#1Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 428 Pa.Super. 413, 631 A.Cases  !XpXXX  _ XXpCommonwealthv.Williams,    521Pa.556,559A.2d25(1989)#XpX M#6Commonwealth v. Williams, 521 Pa. 556, 559 A.2d 25 (Cases  !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X.Commonwealthv._Sattazahn_, r   No.02274_PHILA_Ԁ1995, l   _rearg_.denied,June21,1996#&%% &[M##XpX%&l#8Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, No. 02274 PHILA 1995, reCases u !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X.Commonwealthv._Sattazahn_, r   547Pa.742,690A.2d1162(1997)#&%% &[M##XpX%&l#:Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 547 Pa. 742, 690 A.2d 116Cases !XpXXX  _ XXp_Pa.R.A.P._Ԁ1112,42_Pa.C.S._#XpX J#>Pa.R.A.P. 1112, 42 Pa.C.S.Statutes & Rules  !XpXXX  _ XXpCommonwealthv._Sattazahn_,    537Pa.639,644A.2d162(1994)#XpX M#@Commonwealth v. Sattazahn, 537 Pa. 639, 644 A.2d 162Cases  !XpXXX  _ XXpCommonwealthv._Sattazahn_,    539Pa.270,652A.2d293(1994)#XpX M#BCommonwealth v. Sattazahn, 539 Pa. 270, 652 A.2d 293Cases !XpXXX  _ XXp42_Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(d)(9)#XpX J#F42 Pa.C.S.  9711(d)(9)Statutes & Rules t !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X.Commonwealthv._Sattazahn_, r   563Pa.533,763A.2d359(2000)#&%% &[M##XpX%&l#HCommonwealth v. Sattazahn, 563 Pa. 533, 763 A.2d 359Cases d !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X._Bullington_Ԁv.Missouri, r   451U.S.430(1981)#&%% &[M##XpX%&l#JBullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981)Cases _ !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X.Arizonav._Rumsey_, r   467U.S.203(1984)#&%% &[M##XpX%&l#LArizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984)Cases ? !XpXXX  _ X.XXXp &[%X X.Polandv.Arizona, r   476U.S.147(1986)#&%% &[J##XpX%&i#N Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (1986)CasesCommonwealth v. Sattazahn, 563 Pa. 533, 763 A.2d 35942 Pa.C.S.  9711(d)(6)42 Pa.C.S.  9711(d)(9) !XpXXX  _ XXp42_Pa.C.S._Ԁ9711(h)(1)#XpX J#W42 Pa.C.S.  9711(h)(1)Statutes & Rules Poland v. Arizona, 476 U.S. 147 (1986)  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTNorthCarolinav.Pearce, d   395U.S.711(1969)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#ZNorth Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969)Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTRichardsonv.UnitedStates, d   468U.S.317(1984)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#\Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 324-35 (1CasesBullington v. Missouri, 451 U.S. 430 (1981)Arizona v. Rumsey, 467 U.S. 203 (1984)  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTNorthCarolinav.Pearce, d   395U.S.711(1969)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#`North Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 721 (1969)Cases | !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTUnitedStatesv.Scott, d   437U.S.82,91(1978)  (quotingGreenv.UnitedStates, $   355U.S.184(1957)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#bUnited States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 91 (1978)(quotiCases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTBurksv.UnitedStates, d   437U.S.1(1978)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#dBurks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 16 (1978)CasesRichardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 324-35 (1  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTCommonwealthv.James, d   506Pa.526,486A.2d376(1985)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#gCommonwealth v. James, 506 Pa. 526, 486 A.2d 376 (19Cases ' !X`XXX  ݛ XikXXX` &%X XikCommonwealthv.Marconi, d   340Pa.Super.463,490A.2d871(1985)#&t%% &>##X`X%&t]#iCommonwealth v. Marconi, 340 Pa.Super. 463, 490 A.2dCasesCommonwealth v. Marconi, 340 Pa.Super. 463, 490 A.2d42 Pa.C.S.  9711(c)(1)(v)  !X`XXX  ݛ XikXXX` &%X Xik42Pa.C.S.9711(d)(1)(v)#&t%% &;##X`X%&tZ#yo42 Pa.C.S.  9711(d)(1)(v)Statutes & Rules H !X`XXX  ݛ XikXXX` &%X XikCommonwealthv.Martorano, d   535Pa.178,634A.2d1063(1993)#&t%% &>##X`X%&t]#|qCommonwealth v. Martorano, 535 Pa. 178, 634 A.2d 106CasesNorth Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711 (1969) 4 !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTArizonav.Washington, d   434U.S.497(1978)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#|tArizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 509 (1978)Cases > !X`XXX  ݛ XikXXX` &%X XikԢMullaneyv.Wilbur, d   421U.S.684,702n.31(1975)#&t%% &>##X`X%&t]#|vMullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684, 702 n. 31 (1975)Cases 3 !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢSpeiserv.Randall, d   357U.S.513(1958)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#|xSpeiser v. Randall, 357 U.S. 513, 525 (1958)Cases G !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTUnitedStatesv.MartinLinenSupplyCo., d   430U.S.564(1977)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#|zUnited States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 5Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XikXXX` &%X XikԢSmalisv.Pennsylvania, d   476U.S.140(1986)#&t%% &>##X`X%&t]#|Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986)Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTUnitedStatesv.Perez, d   22U.S.579(1924)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#~United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1924)Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢSerfassv.UnitedStates, d   420U.S.377(1975)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Serfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 389 (1975)CasesSerfass v. United States, 420 U.S. 377, 389 (1975)  !X`XXX  ݛ XikXXX` &%X XikUnitedStatesv.DiFrancesco, d   449U.S.117(1980)#&t%% &>##X`X%&t]#United States v. DiFrancesco, 449 U.S. 117, 132 (198CasesUnited States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 91 (1978)(quotiUnited States v. Martin Linen Supply Co., 430 U.S. 5  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢSchirov.Farley, d   510U.S.222(1994)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, 232 (1994)CasesSmalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140 (1986)Schiro v. Farley, 510 U.S. 222, 232 (1994)  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢAshev.Swenson, d   397U.S.436(1970)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Ashe v. Swenson, 397 U.S. 436, 443 (1970)Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢDowlingv.UnitedStates, d   493U.S.342(1990)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Dowling v. United States, 493 U.S. 342, 350 (1990)Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` 6yX XiTJonesv.UnitedStates,    527U.S.373(1999)#K 6y;##X`XKZ# Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 382 (1999)Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢChaffinv.Stynchcombe, d   412U.S.17(1973)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 30 (1973)CasesNorth Carolina v. Pearce, 395 U.S. 711, 721 (1969)  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢEvittsv.Lucey, d   469U.S.387(1985)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Evitts v. Lucey, 469 U.S. 387 (1985)Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTHicksv.Oklahoma, d   447U.S.343(1980)#&t%% &];##X`X%&tZ# Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980) Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTFordv.Wainwright, d   477U.S.399(1986)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Ford v. Wainwright, 477 U.S. 399, 427-31 (1986)Cases " !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTOhioAdultParoleAuthorityv.Woodward, d   477U.S.272(1998)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Ohio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodward, 477 U.S. 27CasesChaffin v. Stynchcombe, 412 U.S. 17, 30 (1973)Commonwealth v. Martorano, 535 Pa. 178, 634 A.2d 106  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTMathewsv.Eldridge, d   424U.S.319(1976)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Mathews v. Eldridge, 424 U.S. 319, 335 (1976)Cases !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiT42Pa.C.S.9711(a)(1)#&t%% &];##X`X%&tZ#42 Pa.C.S.  9711(a)(1)Statutes & Rules !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiT42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)(iv)#&t%% &];##X`X%&tZ#42 Pa.C.S.  9711(c)(1)(iv)Statutes & Rules !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTԢPa.R.Crim.P.358A,42Pa.C.S.#&t%% &];##X`X%&tZ#Pa.R.Crim.P. 358A, 42 Pa.C.S.Statutes & Rules  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` 6yX XiTCommonwealthv.Buck,    551Pa.184,709A.2d892(1998)#K 6y>##X`XK]#Commonwealth v. Buck, 551 Pa. 184, 190, 709 A.2d 892CasesPa.R.Crim.P. 358A, 42 Pa.C.S. !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` 6yX XiTRule807#K 6y;##X`XKZ#Rule 807Statutes & Rules !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiT1Pa.C.S.1922(2)#&t%% &];##X`X%&tZ#1 Pa.C.S.  1922(2)Statutes & Rules . !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTCommonwealthv.SitkinsJunkCo., d   412Pa.132,194A.2d199(1963)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Commonwealth v. Sitkins Junk Co., 412 Pa. 132, 194 Cases  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTDuncanv.Walker, d   533U.S.167(2001)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Duncan v. Walker, 533 U.S. 167 (2001)Cases Jones v. United States, 527 U.S. 373, 382 (1999)42 Pa.C.S.  9711(a)(1)  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTCommonwealthv.McCane, d   517Pa.489,539A.2d340(1988)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#Commonwealth v. McCane, 517 Pa. 489, 500 n.5, 539 A.CasesCommonwealth v. McCane, 517 Pa. 489, 500 n.5, 539 A.  !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTBradyv.Maryland, d   373U.S.83(1963)#&t%% &];##X`X%&tZ#Brady v. Maryland, 373 U.S. 83, 90 (1963)Cases !X`XXX  ݛ XikXXX` &%X Xik42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)#&t%% &;##X`X%&tZ#42 Pa.C.S.  9711(c)(1)Statutes & Rules Hicks v. Oklahoma, 447 U.S. 343, 346 (1980)   !X`XXX  ݛ XiTXXX` &]%X XiTUnitedStatesv.Jones, d   287F.3d325(2002)#&t%% &]>##X`X%&t]#United States v. Jones, 287 F.3d 325, 331 (2002)CasesOhio Adult Parole Authority v. Woodward, 477 U.S. 27 !  Xi-XXX  _      X*XXXi-8i-XXdd8      @% No.017574   A(3) NcdE NcA@v v INTHESUPREMECOURTOFTHEUNITEDSTATES  A(3) G <dE G <A@DAVIDALLENSATTAZAHN,   N      V     Petitioner   @)v.   @> > COMMONWEALTHOFPENNSYLVANIA,     N      V     Respondent   A(3)  <dE  <A@  &[%X X*ONWRITOFCERTIORARITOTHE u  @ SUPREMECOURTOFPENNSYLVANIA# X*X% &['#Ԉ o  A(3) b <dE b <A@  ! &[%X X*RESPONDENTSBRIEF c # X*X% &[5#A(3) C <dE C <A N      V  &[%X X*MARKC.BALDWIN Q  N      V DistrictAttorney K  N      V IVAC.DOUGHERTY 9  N      V FirstAssistantDistrictAttorney 3  N      V CounselofRecord !q  N      V ALISAR.HOBART _  N      V AssistantDistrictAttorney  Y  N      V BERKSCOUNTYDISTRICT G  N      V ATTORNEYSOFFICE A  N      V 633COURTSTREET ;  N      V READING,PA19601 5  N      V (610)4786000  /  N      V CounselforRespondent, !)  N      V CommonwealthofPennsylvania# X*X% &[# " Dated:August2,2002 #  A(3) NcdE %NcA &[%X X*  % " @""$CAPITALCASE  Ԉ r &   @EE!  :   QUESTIONSPRESENTED  l   N 'N.  I. N DoestheDoubleJeopardyClauseoftheFifth 6  Amendmentbarimpositionofthedeathpenaltyupon $  reconvictionafteraninitialconviction,setasideonappeal,   inwhichthetrialcourtimposedastatutorilymandatedlife   sentencewhenthecapitalsentencingjuryfailedtoreacha  | unanimousverdict?  j      II. N Whetheracapitaldefendant'slifeandlibertyinterest R  inthemandatoryimpositionofalifesentencerequiredby @  statelawwherethesentencingjuryfailstoreacha .  unanimousverdictwasviolatedwhenthestatesoughtthe   deathsentenceonretrial?  |  @"  TABLEOFCONTENTS  $Ԉ r A &    Page'ly l &     QUESTIONSPRESENTEDee>.(i `  TABLEOFCONTENTS33=.&ii T  $Vm  $Vmv0 N   TABLEOFAUTHORITIES#=.)N N #iv$Vmv݌ H  Ќ  $Vm  $Vm;0 N   STATEMENTOFTHECASE#33>.gg*N N #1$Vm;W݌ <  Ќ  $Vm  $Vm0 N   SUMMARYOFARGUMENT#33>.(N N #7$Vm݌ 0  Ќ  $Vm  $Vm0 N   ARGUMENT#=.PPN N #10$Vm݌ $  Ќ  8 N I.  TheDoubleJeopardyClausedidnot  prohibitthecapitalretrialofDavidSattazahn  afterhehadobtainedanewtrialonappeal   whenthefirstjuryhadnotacquittedhimof  thedeathpenalty.#=.<<,N ?N ?#10  8 N II.  Pennsylvanialawdoesnotcreatealife  andlibertyinterestinalifesentenceimposedas | aresultofadeadlockedjurythatsurvivesthe v grantofanewtrialonappeal#=.  8N ?N ?#30 p $Vm  $Vm0 N   CONCLUSION#=.  N N #42$Vm8݌ d Ќ    $F    TABLEOFAUTHORITIES   r Page f   0 N @(N N CASES `  )   '   '   &:%% &[ &[%%&:# X*X% &[ # &[%X X*Arizonav.Rumsey,467U.S.203(1984)#&:%% &[f# &[%%&:}}9.;passim' &݈ T  Ќ̌  '   '   &:%% &[ &[%%&:Arizonav.Washington,434U.S.497(1978)#&:%% &[# &[%%&:=.?21' ݈ H  Ќ̌  '   '   &:%% &[ &[%%&:Ashev.Swenson,397U.S.436(1970)#&:%% &[0# &[%%&:=.927' ݈ <  Ќ̌  '   '   &:%% &[ &[%%&:Bradyv.Maryland,373U.S.83(1963)#&:%% &[h# &[%%&:=...:39' +݈ 0  Ќ̌  '   ' L  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Bullingtonv.Missouri,451U.S.430(1981)#&:%% &[# &[%%&:}}9.@passim' Lg݈ $  Ќ̌  '   '   &:%% &[ &[%%&:Burksv.UnitedStates,437U.S.1(1978)#&:%% &[# &[%%&:=.>12' ݈  Ќ̌  '   '   &:%% &[ &[%%&:Chaffinv.Stynchcombe,412U.S.17(1973)#&:%% &[3!# &[%%&:ww5.ss?29,31,38' ݈   Ќ̌  '   ' !"  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.Buck,551Pa.184,709A.2d892(1998)#&:%% &[|"# &[%%&:=.KKK33' !"<"݈  Ќ̌  '   ' n#  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.James,506Pa.526,486A.2d376(1985)#&:%% &[## &[%%&:=.L12' n##݈  Ќ̌  '   0 N ' $  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.Marconi,340Pa.Super.463,490A.2d871 v Ѐ(1985)#&:%% &[/%# &[%%&:#=."N N #13' $$݈ p Ќ̌  '   0 N ' J&  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.Martorano,  535Pa.178,634A.2d d 1063(1993)#&:%% &[&# &[%%&:#}}9.%N N #passim' J&}&݈  ^ Ќ̌  '   ' '  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.McCane, "R  N 517Pa.489,539A.2d340(1988)#&:%% &[B(# &[%%&:=.:38' '(݈ #L   $F Ќ  '   0 N ' v)  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.Sattazahn,428Pa.Super.413,631A.2d r  597(1993)#&:%% &[)# &[%%&:#33>.$N N #3' v))݈ l Ќ̌  '   ' +  &:%% &[Commonwealthv.Sattazahn,537Pa.639,644A.2d162(1994) &[%%&:33>.P4' +&+݈ `  Ќ̌  '   ' ,  &:%% &[Commonwealthv.Sattazahn,539Pa.270,652A.2d293(1994) &[%%&:33>.P4' ,5,݈ T  Ќ̌  '   ' )-  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.Sattazahn, H   N 547Pa.742,690A.2d1162(1997)#&:%% &[-# &[%%&:33>.rr;4' )-D-݈ B Ќ̌  '   ' .  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.Sattazahn, 6   N 563Pa.533,763A.2d359(2000)#&:%% &[.# &[%%&:}}9.:passim' ..݈ 0  Ќ̌  '   ' 0  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.Sattazahn,No.02274PHILA1995#&:%% &[v0# &[%%&:33>.E4' 060݈ $  Ќ̌  '   0 N ' a1  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Commonwealthv.SitkinsJunkCo.,412Pa.132,194A.2d  199(1963)#&:%% &[1# &[%%&:#=.$N N #35' a11݈  Ќ̌  '   ' 2  &:%% &[Commonwealthv.Williams,521Pa.556,559A.2d25(1989) &[%%&:33>.N3' 2 3݈  Ќ̌  '   ' 3  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Dowlingv.UnitedStates,493U.S.342(1990)#&:%% &[Z4# &[%%&:=.nnB27' 34݈  Ќ̌  '   ' C5  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Duncanv.Walker,533U.S.167(2001)#&:%% &[5# &[%%&:=.:::35' C5^5݈ | Ќ̌  '   ' 6  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Evittsv.Lucey,469U.S.387(1985)#&:%% &[6# &[%%&:=.@@930' 66݈ p Ќ̌  '   ' 7  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Fordv.Wainwright,477U.S.399(1986)#&:%% &[8# &[%%&:=.<30' 77݈ d Ќ̌  '   ' 8  Greenv.UnitedStates,355U.S.184(1957)=.@11' 89݈ !X Ќ̌  '   ' 9  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Hicksv.Oklahoma,447U.S.343(1980)#&:%% &[:# &[%%&:9.<30,40' 99݈ #L Ќ̌  '   ' :  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Jonesv.UnitedStates,527U.S.373(1999)#&:%% &[T;# &[%%&:9.[[@28,36':;݈ %@  Ќ  '   ' B<  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Mathewsv.Eldridge,424U.S.319(1976)#&:%% &[<# &[%%&:=.=32' B<]<݈ r Ќ̌  '   ' =  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Mullaneyv.Wilbur,421U.S.684(1975)#&:%% &[=# &[%%&:=.<21' ==݈ f Ќ̌  '   ' >  &:%% &[ &[%%&:NorthCarolinav.Pearce,395U.S.711(1969)#&:%% &[?# &[%%&:}}9.IIBpassim' >>݈ Z  Ќ̌  '   ' @  &:%% &[ &[%%&:OhioAdultParoleAuthorityv.Woodward, N   N 477U.S.272(1998)#&:%% &[h@# &[%%&:9.-30,40' @(@݈ H  Ќ̌  '   ' A  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Polandv.Arizona,476U.S.147(1986)#&:%% &[A# &[%%&:}}9.<<;passim' AA݈ <  Ќ̌  '   ' B  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Richardsonv.UnitedStates,468U.S.317(1984)#&:%% &[(C# &[%%&:..66E7,12,13,23,38' BB݈ 0  Ќ̌  '   ' #D  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Schirov.Farley,510U.S.222(1994)#&:%% &[~D# &[%%&:6.~~:25-27,38' #D>D݈ $  Ќ̌  '   ' fE  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Serfassv.UnitedStates,420U.S.377(1975)#&:%% &[E# &[%%&:9.B23,24' fEE݈  Ќ̌  '   ' F  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Smalisv.Pennsylvania,476U.S.140(1986)#&:%% &[ G# &[%%&:ww5.@22,25,26' FF݈   Ќ̌  '   ' G  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Speiserv.Randall,357U.S.513(1958)#&:%% &[SH# &[%%&:=.--<22' GH݈  Ќ̌  '   ' 6I  &:%% &[ &[%%&:UnitedStatesv.DiFrancesco,449U.S.117(1980)#&:%% &[I# &[%%&:=.F24' 6IQI݈  Ќ̌  '   ' ~J  &:%% &[ &[%%&:UnitedStatesv.Jones,287F.3d325(5thCir.2002)#&:%% &[J# &[%%&:=.H40' ~JJ݈ v Ќ̌  '   ' K  &:%% &[ &[%%&:UnitedStatesv.MartinLinenSupplyCo., j  N 430U.S.564(1977)#&:%% &[)L# &[%%&:9.-22,24' KK݈ d Ќ̌  '   ' HM  &:%% &[ &[%%&:UnitedStatesv.Perez,22U.S.579(1924)#&:%% &[M# &[%%&:=.?23' HMcM݈ !X Ќ̌  '   ' N  &:%% &[ &[%%&:UnitedStatesv.Scott,437U.S.82(1978)#&:%% &[N# &[%%&:ww5.?11,24,28' NN݈ #L Ќ̌  # X*X% &[#  %@  @L L STATUTESANDRULESOFPROCEDURE r N N N *   '   ' P  Xi-XX X* X*XXXi- &[%X X*1Pa.C.S.1922(2)#&:%% &[P# &[%%&:=.(35' PP݈ f Ќ̌  '   ' Q  &:%% &[ &[%%&:42Pa.C.S.9711(a)(1)#&:%% &[/R# &[%%&:ww5.ee,32,37,39' QQ݈ Z  Ќ̌  '   ' S  &:%% &[ &[%%&:42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)#&:%% &[bS# &[%%&:=.YY,39' S%S݈ N  Ќ̌  # X*X% &[Q# &[%X X*'   ' wT  &:%% &[ &[%%&:42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)(iv)#&:%% &[T# &[%%&:=.mm033' wTT݈ B Ќ̌  # X*X% &[XT#'   ' U  Xi-XX X* X*XXXi- &[%X X*42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)(v)#&:%% &[!V# &[%%&:2.;;/3,14,20,34' UU݈ 6  Ќ̌  &:%% &['   ' @W  42Pa.C.S.9711(d)(6) &[%%&:??7.,2,5,19' @W[W݈ *  Ќ̌  '   ' X  &:%% &[42Pa.C.S.9711(d)(9) &[%%&:kk;.,4,5' X+X݈   Ќ̌  '   ' X  &:%% &[42Pa.C.S.9711(h)(1) &[%%&:33>.,5' XY݈  Ќ̌  '   ' Y  &:%% &[Pa.R.A.P.1112,42Pa.C.S. &[%%&:33>.  /4' YY݈  Ќ̌  '   ' Z  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Pa.R.Crim.P.358A,42Pa.C.S.#&:%% &[#[# &[%%&:=.233' ZZ݈  Ќ̌  '   ' [  &:%% &[ &[%%&:Pa.R.Crim.P.807#&:%% &[Q\# &[%%&:,42Pa.C.S.=.433' [\݈ | Ќ̌  # X*X% &[@V# P  p   P@~~   STATEMENTOFTHECASE _]  r    &[%X X* N Petitioner,DavidSattazahn,wasarrestedonJuly17, s 1989,andwaschargedwithcriminalhomicideandrelated m  crimesintheshootingdeath,sometwoyearsearlier,of g  RichardBoyer,arestaurantmanager,whowasattackedashe a  leftwork,afterthecloseofbusiness,withthedaysreceipts [  containedinabankdepositbag.Initsprosecutionof U  Sattazahn,theCommonwealth,therespondentinthisCourt, O soughtthedeathpenalty. I   N TheevidencepresentedatSattazahnsjurytrialbefore =  theBerksCountyCourtofCommonPleasestablishedthathe 7  andacodefendant,JeffreyScottHammer, #  1      ׀had,overthe 1  courseofseveralweekendsleadinguptothecrime,engaged +  insurveillanceoftherestaurantmanagedbyRichardBoyer. % Hiddenawayinaclearingtheyhadmadeinannearby  woodedarea,theystudiedtherestaurantsoperationand  routine,learningthattherestaurantdidthemostbusinesson  SundaysandalsothatBoyer,whowasthelastpersontoleave   therestauranteachnight,broughtwithhimamoneybag  whenheleft.Record,N.T.,5/6/91,48890,50103.   N Atapproximately11:00p.m.onSunday,April12,  1987, } Boyercameoutoftherestaurantcarryingabankdepositbag w containingthedaysreceipts,closedtherestaurant,and q startedwalkingtowardhispickuptruckparkedoutside. r SattazahnandHammer,whohadbeenintheirhidingplace l inthewoodedareaforaboutanhourwaitingtorobBoyer, f suddenlyemerged,andwithgunsdrawn,confrontedBoyer. `  Sattazahn,whohada.22calibersemiautomaticpistol,and Z  Hammer,whohada.41caliberrevolver,toldBoyertodrop T  thebagandputhishandsup.Boyerputuphishandsbut N  threwthebagtowardtherestaurant.Afterbeingforcedto H  retrieveitbySattazahn,Boyeragainthrewittowardthe B restaurantsroofandtriedtorunaway.Hammerheard <  Sattazahnfireonceandthenhimselffiredasinglewarning 6  shotintotheair.Sattazahnfiredtwoorthreemoretimesand 0  Boyerfelltotheground.SattazahnandHammergrabbedthe *  bankdepositbagandfled.Record,N.T.,5/6/91,49496,504 $  11.    N TheautopsyonthevictimshowedthatBoyerhadbeen  shotfivetimes:twiceinthelowerback;onceintheleft   shoulder;onceinthelowerface;andonceinthebackofthe  head.Allofthewoundswereconsistentwithbeinginflicted  bya.22caliberbullet.TwoslugsrecoveredfromBoyersbody  andfivedischargedcartridgecasesfoundatthescenewere  identifiedashavingbeenfiredfromthe.22caliberweapon | Sattazahnwasshowntoown.Record,N.T.5/3/91,23352. v ThejuryfoundSattazahnguiltyoffirst,secondandthird p degreemurder,robberyandotherrelatedoffenses.Record, j N.T.,5/9/91,89394. d  N Inthepenaltyphasewhichfollowed,thejurydidnot !X reachadecisionastoSattazahnssentence,nordiditmake "R  anyfindingswithrespecttoaggravatingormitigating #L  P        circumstances. #  2      ׀J.A.,2529.Thetrialcourthaddetermined, r  afterthreeandonehalfhoursofdeliberation,thatthejury l washopelesslydeadlockedand,attherequestofthedefense, f dismissedthejuryashung.J.A.,2224. `   N OnFebruary14,1992,inaccordancewiththe T  provisionsofPennsylvanialaw,see 0 42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)(v), N  Sattazahnwassentencedtoatermoflifeimprisonmenton H  thefirstdegreemurderconviction,andtoconsecutiveterms B ofincarcerationforothercrimesofwhichhehadbeenfound <  guiltyinthesametrial.} #  3      ׀J.A.4546.Inaddition,between 6  September19,1991,andApril1,1992,Sattazahnentered 0  guiltypleastoandwassentencedonfiveburglariesandone *  robberyinBerksCounty,thirddegreemurdercommittedon $  December26,1987,inSchuylkillCounty,andburglary   chargesinLebanonCounty,J.A.,79.   N Sattazahnthenappealedhisconvictionsforfirst   degreemurderandothercrimesrelatedtoRichardBoyers  deathtothePennsylvaniaSuperiorCourt.Initsdecision  issuedat 2 Commonwealthv.Sattazahn,428Pa.Super.413,631  A.2d597(1993),thatcourtruledthattheevidenceadduced r attrialwasinsufficienttosupportconvictionsoncertainof l therelatedcrimesanddismissedthosecharges.Withrespect f totheremainingconvictions,includingthefirstdegree `  murderconviction,theSuperiorCourtruledthatthetrial Z  judgehaderredininstructingthejury,reversedthe T  convictionsandremandedforanewtrialonthosecharges. N  TheSuperiorCourtdeniedarequestforreargumentbythe H  CommonwealthandthePennsylvaniaSupremeCourt B declinedtoreviewthecase. #  4       <   N Withrespecttotheimpendingnewtrial,the 6  Commonwealthagainservednoticethatitwouldseekthe 0  deathpenalty.Thatnoticeidentifiedthespecificaggravating *  circumstancestheCommonwealthwouldseektoproveinthe $  eventapenaltyphaseweretobeconducted.The   Commonwealthsnoticelistedthesameaggravating  circumstanceithadsoughttoproveatSattazahnsfirsttrial,  seen.2,supra,andonenotpreviouslysoughtinthose   proceedings. #  5      ׀J.A.,4750.      N Thedefensefiledamotioninthetrialcourttoprevent r  theCommonwealthfromseekingthedeathpenaltyandto l preventitfromseekingtoprovetheaddedaggravating f circumstance.Thatmotionwasdenied.J.A.,5467.Thetrial `  courtsrulingwasaffirmedbytheSuperiorCourtwhich Z  revieweditinaninterlocutoryappeal. 9 Commonwealthv. T  Sattazahn,No.02274PHILA1995,rearg.denied,June21,1996. N  ThePennsylvaniaSupremeCourtdeclinedtograntreviewof H  theSuperiorCourtsruling. ; Commonwealthv.Sattazahn,547 B Pa.742,690A.2d1162(1997). <   N Attheretrialwhichensued,thejuryconvicted 0  SattazahnofthefirstdegreemurderofRichardBoyerandof *  otherrelatedcharges.Inthepenaltyphaseofthetrial,the $  jurysentencedSattazahntodeath,unanimouslyconcluding   thatthetwoaggravatingcircumstanceswhichithad  determinedtoexistoutweighedthethreemitigating  circumstancesithadfound. #  6      ׀J.A.,8588.    N SattazahnappealedtothePennsylvaniaSupreme  Courtwhichaffirmedthejudgmentofsentenceinadecision  datedNovember27,2000. #  7      ׀ I Commonwealthv.Sattazahn,563  Pa.533,763A.2d359(2000);J.A.,91109.Inthatappeal,he | maintained,interalia,thatthefederalDueProcessClauseand r DoubleJeopardyClauseprohibitedtheCommonwealthfrom l seekingthedeathpenaltyinhisretrial.ThePennsylvania f SupremeCourt,relyingon K Bullingtonv.Missouri,451U.S.430 `  (1981), M Arizonav.Rumsey,467U.S.203(1984),and O ԀPolandv. Z  Arizona,476U.S.147(1986),heldthat,sincethejury,as T  decisionmakerinthefirsttrial,madenofindingsregarding N  theaggravatingandmitigatingcircumstancesandfailedto H  reachaverdict,therewasnoacquittalonthemeritsofthe B deathpenaltyand,therefore,nodoublejeopardybarto <  seekingthedeathpenaltyatthesecondtrial. P ԀCommonwealth 6  v.Sattazahn,563Pa.533,54849,763A.2d359,36768.The 0  Courtalsofoundthatdueprocessdidnotpreventthe *  Commonwealthfromseekingthedeathpenaltyonretrial $  sincetheUnitedStatesSupremeCourthadrejectedtheclaim   thataharshersentenceonretrialhadachillingeffectonthe  defendantsrighttoappeal. P Sattazahn,563Pa.at551,763  A.2dat36869.    @!  SUMMARYOFARGUMENT _  r I. N In Y Polandv.Arizona,476U.S.147,thisCourtstated Z thattheonlyexceptiontothe cleanslateruleonre T  sentencingfoundin [ NorthCarolinav.Pearce,395U.S.711 N  (1969),ariseswhenthedecisionmakeratthefirsttrialorthe H  reviewingcourtfindsthattheprosecutionfailedtoproveits B  case.Thedeterminationthattheprosecutionhasfailedto <  proveitscasewithregardtowhetherdeathistheappropriate 6 remedyrequiresaverdictofacquittal.Whenajuryreaches 0  noverdictinthepenaltyphaseofacapitalcase,itdoesnot *  decidethattheprosecutionhasnotproveditscasewith $  regardtodeathitsimplymakesnodecision.Withnofinding   thattheprosecutionhasnotproveditscase,therehasbeenno   acquittalofdeathandthe cleanslaterulemustapplywhen   thedefendantreceivesanewtrialonappeal.    N AlthoughPennsylvaniascapitalsentencingprocedure  resemblesatrialandthustriggerstheneedtodetermineif  doublejeopardyprotectionsareavailabletoadefendant,the  availabilityofsuchprotectionsdoesnotnecessarilymeanthat | theprotectionsapplytobararetrialondeath.Inthesituation v wherethejuryreachesnoverdictandthejudge,without p reviewingtheevidenceormakinganyindependentfindings, j thereafterimposestherequiredlifesentenceunderthestatute, d therehasneverbeenanacquittaloranyfindingsbythe ^ decisionmakerthattheCommonwealthhasfailedtoproveits X case.Thissituationcomportswiththejurisprudenceonhung  R juries,notacquittals.Thesituationwhereajuryhas !L deadlockedbecauseitisunabletodecideamatterhasnever "F beenequatedwithanacquittal. ] Richardsonv.UnitedStates, #@ 468U.S.317,32435(1984). $:  %4   N Theimpositionofalifesentencebythejudge,afterthe r jurydeadlockedatthepenaltyphaseofSattazahnsfirsttrial, l alsofailstomeetthedefinitionofanacquittal.Thejurymade f nofindingsatallinfailingtoreachaverdict.Thesectionof `  thestatuteunderwhichthejudgeimposedthelifesentence Z  allowsfornoreviewoftheevidencepriortoimpositionof T  sentenceandrequiresnofindingsbythejudgeastowhether N  theprosecutionproveditscase.Therecordshowsthatthis H  judgemadenoreviewoftheevidenceandnofindingsofany B kind.Therefore,thelifesentenceimposedbythejudge <  resolvednofactualmattersinthecaseandcannotbeequated 6  withanacquittal. 0   N Sincetherehasneverbeenadecisionbyeitherjuryor $  judgeatthefirsttrialthattheprosecutionfailedtoproveits   casethatdeathwastheappropriatepunishmentforthe  murdercommittedbySattazahn,thendoublejeopardydid  notbarsocietyfromseekingtheappropriatepunishmentfor   Sattazahnwhennewjeopardyattachedasaresultofhis  receivinganewtrialonappeal.Thegovernment,ina  situationwherethedefendanthasneverbeenacquittedonthe  meritsofthedeathpenalty,ispermittedtopursuesocietys  interestinpunishingthedefendantwhenhisguiltismade | clearafterobtaininga cleanslate. v  N II. N ThePennsylvaniadeathpenaltystatutedidnotgive j Sattazahnalifeandlibertyinterestinthedefaultlifesentence d imposedbythejudgeafterthejurydeadlockedinthepenalty  ^ phaseofthetrialbecausetheimpositionofthesentencewas !X merelyaministerialactbythejudge.Assumingarguendothat "R suchaninterestwascreatedbythestatute,theinterestdid #L notsurvivethevacationoftheoriginaldefaultsentence.At $F most,Sattazahnhadalifeandlibertyinterestinthe %@  impositionofalifesentenceifthejurydeadlockedinthe r penaltyphaseofhistrial.Hereceivedthatlifesentence. l Afterhereceivedanewtrialonappeal,helostanyinteresthe f hadinthedefaultsentenceimposedatthefirsttrial. `   N Nothingindueprocessjurisprudencesuggeststhata T  lifeandlibertyinterestcanneverbedisturbed.Theonlylegal N  theorythatcouldsupportSattazahnssuggestionthathislife H  andlibertyinterestinthedefaultlifesentenceisimmutableis B foundindoublejeopardyanalysis.Dueprocesssimply <  requiresthatSattazahnreceivetheproperprocessduebefore 6  deprivinghimofalifeandlibertyinterest. 0   N TheSupremeCourtofPennsylvania,whichisthe $  highestcourtintheCommonwealth,hasinterpretedthe   statesdeathpenaltystatuteasclearlydifferentiatingbetween  averdictbyajuryandthelifesentenceimposedbythejudge  intheeventofadeadlockedjury.Inaddition,theCourthas   foundthatthelegislativedecisiontoprovideforadefaultlife  sentencedoesnotinanywayshowanintenttoprecludethe  deathpenaltyuponreconviction.Asthefinalarbiterof  Pennsylvanialaw,theSupremeCourtofPennsylvanias  interpretationofPennsylvanialawisbindingonSattazahn. |  N OnceSattazahnreceivedanewtrialafterhisfirstjury p deadlockedonthedeathpenalty,theprosecutioncouldagain j seekthedeathpenaltyunderthestatute.Hereceivedthefull d panoplyofpretrial,trialandappellaterightsbeforethat  ^ sentencewasimposed,therebyprotectinghimfromany !X arbitraryimpositionofthedeathpenalty.The "R Commonwealthprovidednoticeandhehadtheopportunity #L tobeheardatallstagesofthesecondtrial.Therefore,he $F receivedeveryprotectiontowhichhewasentitledunderthe %@  DueProcessClause.NeithertheDueProcessClausenorthe r PennsylvaniastatutecreatedanentitlementinSattazahnto l thedefaultlifesentencebeyondthefirsttrial. f   Z   @ss&  ARGUMENT Ԉ r   I. N TheDoubleJeopardyClausedidnotprohibitthe N capitalretrialofDavidSattazahnafterhehadobtaineda <  newtrialonappealwhenthefirstjuryhadnotacquitted *  himofthedeathpenalty.      N In Y Polandv.Arizona,476U.S.147,thisCourttold   stateslikePennsylvania,whoselawsprovideforasentencing   procedureincapitalcaseswhichissimilartoatrial,thatthe   FifthAmendmentsDoubleJeopardyClausedoesnotprevent |  theprosecutionfromseekingthedeathpenaltyintheretrial v  ofacaseif,intheprevioustrial,neitherthesentencingjury p  noranappellatecourthadrenderedadecisiondetermining j  thattheprosecutionhadnotproveditscase.Polanddidnot d  alter,butratherclarified,theprincipleannouncedin ^  ^ Bullingtonv.Missouri,451U.S.430,laterreiteratedin _ ԀArizona X v.Rumsey,467U.S.203,thatconstitutionalprotections R againstdoublejeopardypreventtheprosecutionfromseeking L adeathpenaltyuponretrialofacasewherethejuryinthe F priortrialagreed,oranappellatecourthaddecided,thatthe @ evidencepresentedbytheprosecutionwasinsufficientto : supportthedeathpenalty. 4  N Forpurposesofdoublejeopardyjurisprudence,asthe ( CourtinPolandpointedout,adecisionbyajury,orbyan " appellatecourt,thattheprosecutionhadfailedtoproveits  caserepresentsthesingularexceptiontothe cleanslaterule,   whichtypicallyallowstheprosecutiontoseekthesame,oran ! evengreater,punishmentintheretrialofacase.Poland,476 |"  U.S.at152(citingBullington,451U.S.at443,and a North v# Carolinav.Pearce,395U.S.711,721(1969)).Becauseatrial p$ likesentencingproceedinginacapitalcasehad the j%  hallmarksof[a]trialonguiltorinnocence,seeid.at439,the r Courtsaidthat theprotectionaffordedbytheDouble l JeopardyClausetooneacquittedbyajurywasalsoavailable f to[adefendantinacapitalcase],withrespecttothedeath `  penalty,athisretrial.Id.at446.Accordingly,atthe Z  conclusionofthattypeofproceeding,ifthesentencing T  decisionmakerhasreturnedaverdictwhichrejectsthe N  prosecutionscase,therehasbeenan acquittalastothe H  deathpenaltyforthatparticulardefendantanddouble B jeopardybarshisexposuretothatpenaltyuponretrial. <   N Poland,however,madeitclearthatitisan acquittal 0  bythesentencingjuryorbyanappellatecourtonthequestion *  ofwhatpenaltythedefendantshouldreceiveandonlyan $   acquittalwhichtriggerstheprotectionsofdoublejeopardy.    Y Poland,476U.S.at153.Referringtowhatithadsaidearlier  inBullington,andinRumsey,theCourtstressedthat  constitutionalprotectionsagainstdoublejeopardyserveto   enforcethe absolutefinalitythatoursystemofjusticehas  chosentoaccordtoaverdictofacquittal,evenanincorrect  verdict.Id.at153andn.2.  8 N [T]helawattachesparticularsignificancetoan | acquittal.Topermitasecondtrialafteran v acquittal,howevermistakentheacquittalmay p havebeen,wouldpresentanunacceptably j highriskthattheGovernment,withitsvastly d superiorresources,mightweardownthe  ^ defendantsothat eventhoughinnocenthe !X maybefoundguilty. c UnitedStatesv.Scott, "R 437U.S.82,91(1978)(quotingGreenv.United #L States,355U.S.184,188(1957)).$FN ?N ?  %@  Id.at156(citationinoriginal).Forpurposesofasentencing r verdict,inkeepingwiththeanalogyBullingtonusedin l discussingtriallikepenaltyproceedingsincapitalcases,an f acquittalmeanstheprosecution receivedonefair `  opportunitytoofferwhateverproofitcouldassemble,but Z  thatthedecisionmaker,byreturningaverdictof acquittal T  hadaffirmativelydeterminedthatitsevidencewasinsufficient N  tojustifyimpositionofthedeathpenalty. ^ ԀBullington,451U.S. H  at446(quoting e Burksv.UnitedStates,437U.S.1,16(1978)). B  N RejectingthepetitionersargumentinPolandthat,on 0  retrial,theprosecutionwasbarredfromaskingthejudgeto *  findparticularaggravatingcircumstanceswhichthejudge $  hadpreviouslydeclinedtofind,consistentwithits   explanationoftheparticularsignificanceofanacquittal,the  Courtsaidthatitisnotthedeterminationofindividualfactors  whichmightfigureinthedecisionmakersconclusionabout   thesuitabilityofthedeathpenalty,buttheultimatedecision  itself,whichhassignificancefordoublejeopardypurposes.   Under ^ Bullingtonand _ Rumsey,...therelevantinquiry...is  whetherthesentencing[decisionmaker]orthereviewing  courthasdecid[ed]thattheprosecutionhasnotprovedits | caseforthedeathpenaltyandhencehasacquittedthe v [defendant].Poland,476U.S.at154(quotingBullington,451 p U.S.at433).Becausetherehadbeennofindingin Y Polandthat j  theevidence[was]legallyinsufficienttojustifyimposition d ofthedeathpenalty,therewasnodeathpenalty acquittal  ^ ....Id.at157. !X  N Here,too,therewasno acquittal,andthereforeno #L doublejeopardybartotheCommonwealthsseekingthe $F deathpenaltywhenitretriedSattazahn.Thesentencingjury %@  inhisfirsttrialdidnotfindthattheprosecutionsevidence r waslegallyinsufficienttosupportadeathpenalty.Theonly l thingitdecidedwasthatitcouldntdecide.ThePennsylvania f SupremeCourt,guidedbytheCourtsdecisionsinBullington, `  RumseyandPoland,correctlyappreciatedthisdistinctionand Z  gaveitpropereffect.Thefirstjurysactionwasanon T  decisionwhichhadnoconsequenceforpurposesofdouble N  jeopardyundertheteachingsofthosecases.Thereisno H  supportineitherfederallaworthelawofPennsylvania,for B thenotionthattheinabilityonthepartofajurytodecidea <  matterequateswithajudgmentastothemeritsofthe 6  prosecutionscase.(See,e.g., f Richardsonv.UnitedStates,468 0  U.S.317; h Commonwealthv.James,506Pa.526,486A.2d376 *  (1985); j  k Commonwealthv.Marconi,340Pa.Super.463,490A.2d $  871(1985)).    N Indeed,as f Richardsonreflects,thisCourtsdouble  jeopardyjurisprudencehasneverseenajurysfailuretoreach   averdictasaneventwhichtriggerstheprotectionsofdouble  jeopardy.Inordertodecidethatdoublejeopardybarredthe  Commonwealthfromseekingthedeathpenaltyin  Sattazahnsretrial,thisCourtmustfirstfindthatthelife  sentenceimposeduponSattazahnathisfirsttrialasaresult | ofthejurysfailuretoreachaverdicttriggeredsuch v protections.Suchaholdingistotallyinconsistentwiththis p Courtsholdingsin Y Poland, _ Rumseyand ^ Bullington. j  N In Y Polandv.Arizona,476U.S.147,thisCourtstated  ^ that therelevantinquiryin[BullingtonandRumsey]is !X whetherthesentencingjudgeorreviewingcourthas "R decid[ed]thattheprosecutionhasnotproveditscaseforthe #L deathpenaltyandhencehasacquittedpetitioners. $F Bullington,451U.S.at443.Poland,451U.S.at154.Ifthat, %@  infact,istherelevantinquiryindeterminingwhetherthe r DoubleJeopardyClausebarsreseekingthedeathpenalty, l thenSattazahnsargumentmustfailsinceneitherthejury,the f judgenoranyreviewingcourteverdecidedthatthe `  prosecutiondidnotproveitscaseforthedeathpenaltyinhis Z  firsttrial.Thedefendantwasnever acquittedofthedeath T  penalty. N   N TheCommonwealthagreesthatthecapitalsentencing B procedureinPennsylvaniaresemblesatrialfordouble <  jeopardypurposes,justastheMissouriandArizona 6  sentencingproceedingsinBullingtonandRumsey,andthatthe 0  procedure,therefore,triggerstheneedtodetermineif *  protectionisavailableundertheDoubleJeopardyClause.The $  factthatdoublejeopardyprotectionmaybeavailabledoesnot   meanthatitnecessarilybarsaretrialondeath.Unlikethe  juriesinBullingtonandRumsey,theinstantdefendantsfirst  juryfailedtoreachaverdictafterapproximatelythreeand   onehalfhoursofdeliberationandthedefendantsattorney  immediatelyaskedthatthejurybedischarged.J.A.,22.  Thereafter,thejudge,withoutmakinganyfindingsoreven  consideringtheevidencepresentedatthesentencinghearing,  imposedalifesentenceasrequiredbyPennsylvaniascapital | sentencingstatute. l 42Pa.C.S.9711(c)(1)(v). v  N Significantforpurposesofdoublejeopardyanalysisis j thefailureofthejuryinSattazahnsfirsttrialtoreacha d verdictormakeanyfindings.Theirinactionresultedinthe  ^ absenceofafindingordecisionaboutthesufficiencyofthe !X Commonwealthsproof.Thefactthatthejudgewasthen "R requiredtoimposealifesentencedidnottransformthelack #L offindingsastothesufficiencyoftheevidenceintoan $F acquittal. %@  Ї N In _ Rumsey,thiscourtheldthatthedoublejeopardy r principleinboth ^ BullingtonandRumseywasthat ...an l acquittalonthemeritsbythesoledecisionmakerinthe f proceedingisfinalandbarsretrialonthesamecharge. `  Rumsey,476U.S.at211.However,thereasonajuryishung Z  ispreciselybecausethereisnotadecisiononthemerits.The T  factthatthestatuterequiresthepresidingjudgetoimposea N  lifesentenceintheeventofadeadlockedjurydoesnot H  transformthelackofaverdictintoadecisiononthemerits. B Ifthereisnodecisiononthemerits,thereisnoacquittaland, <  therefore,nobartoretrialonthesamechargeunderthe 6  DoubleJeopardyClause. 0   N InBullington,thisCourtfirstappliedtheprotectionsof $  doublejeopardytoasentencingproceeding.Bullingtonv.   Missouri,451U.S.430.Itwasthefirstcaseinwhichthis  Courtreviewedacapitalsentenceproceedingwhich  resembledatrialonthequestionofguiltorinnocence.In   Bullington,thedefendantwasconvictedofcapitalmurderby  ajuryand,afteraseparatecapitalsentencingproceeding,the  samejuryreturnedaverdictoflifeimprisonment.Thetrial  courtsubsequentlygrantedBullingtonsmotionforanew  trial.Theprosecutionagainsoughtthedeathpenaltyatthe | retrial. ^ Bullington,451U.S.at43536.Aftergranting v certiorari,thisCourtheldthattheprosecutionwasbarred p fromreseekingthedeathpenalty. j  N Inreachingthisdecision,thisCourtdiscussedits  ^ resistancetoextendingdoublejeopardyprinciplesto !X sentencingbecause [t]heimpositionofaparticularsentence "R usuallyisnotregardedasanacquittalofanymoreserious #L sentencethatcouldhavebeenimposed.Bullington,451U.S. $F at438.However,thisCourtrecognizedthatthecapital %@  sentencingproceedingbeforeitinBullingtondifferedfromthe r sentencingproceedingsithadconsideredinpreviouscases l whereithadrejectedtheapplicabilityofdoublejeopardy f protectionstosentencing.Bullington,451U.S.at438. `   N InthesentencingproceedinginBullington,the T  prosecutionhadtheburdentoprovecertainfactsbeyonda N  reasonabledoubtinordertoobtaintheharsheroftheonly H  twosentencingalternatives,lifeimprisonmentanddeath.The B hearingatwhichtheprosecutionsoughttoprovethesefacts <  wasinallrelevantrespectslikethetrialonthequestionof 6  guiltorinnocence.Thejurywasprovidedwithstandardsto 0  guideitinmakingthechoicebetweenthetwoalternatives *  andhadtomakespecificfindingsregardingtheaggravating $  andmitigatingcircumstancestorenderaverdictimposingthe   deathpenalty.Bullington,451U.S.at438.   N ThisCourtrecognizedthatoneoftheresultsofthese   differencesinsentencingproceedingswasthat,intheusual  sentencingproceeding,itwasimpossibletoconcludethatthe  reasonforimposinglessthanthestatutorymaximumsentence  wasthesentencersdecisionthatthegovernmenthadfailed  toproveitscase.Bullington,451U.S.at443. Byenactinga | capitalsentencingprocedurethatresemblesatrialontheissue v ofguiltorinnocence,however,Missouriexplicitlyrequiresthe p jurytodeterminewhethertheprosecutionhasprovedits j case. ^  ^ Bullington,451U.S.at444.WhatBullingtondoesnot d addressiswhathappenswhenthejuryfailstomakethis  ^ determination. !X  N Becauseoftheclearverdictbythesentencerin #L Bullington,whichsentencedthedefendanttolife $F imprisonmentafterasentencingproceedingwhichwaslike %@  thetrialonhisguiltorinnocence,theDoubleJeopardyClause r precludedthegovernmentfromagainseekingthedeath l penaltyonretrial.Bullington,451U.S.at446.What f Bullingtondoesnotholdisthatthemereimpositionofalife `  sentencebyoperationofstatutewherenoverdictisrendered, Z  inacapitalsentencingproceedingwhichresemblesatrialon T  guiltorinnocence,issufficienttoinvoketheDoubleJeopardy N  Clausetobarthedeathsentenceuponretrial. H   N In _ ԀArizonav.Rumsey,467U.S.203,thisCourtagain <  reviewedacapitalsentenceproceedingwhichresembleda 6  trialonthequestionofguiltorinnocence.ThefactsinRumsey 0  werethatRumseyhadbeenconvictedbyajuryofrobbery *  andfirstdegreemurder.Thetrialjudgethenconducteda $  separatesentencinghearingtodeterminewhetherdeathwas   theappropriatesentence.Thetrialjudgesubsequently  returneda specialverdictsettingforthhisfindingsonthe  aggravatingandmitigatingcircumstances.Findingno   aggravatingormitigatingcircumstances,thetrialcourt  imposedalifesentence.Rumsey,467U.S.at205206.This  Courtstatedthattherelevantdoublejeopardyprinciplein  bothBullingtonandRumseywasthat  anacquittalonthe  meritsbythesoledecisionmaker intheproceedingisfinal | andbarsretrialonthesamecharge.Rumsey,467U.S.at211 v ( emphasisadded ).ThisCourtwentontorecognizethatthe p initialsentenceimposedbythesentencerwasanacquittalon j themeritsofwhetherdeathwasanappropriatepunishment d fortheoffense.Rumsey,467U.S.at211.Specifically,this  ^ Courtsaid: Thatjudgment, basedonfindingssufficientto !X establishlegalentitlementtothelifesentence ,amountsto "R anacquittalonthemerits...Rumsey,467U.S.at211 #L ( emphasisadded ).Therefore,thefactorsconsideredbythis $F Courtin _ Rumseywithregardtothedoublejeopardybaron %@  seekingdeathatthesecondtrialwentbeyondthemere r impositionofalifesentenceatthefirsttrial.Theyincludedan l acquittalonthemeritsbythesoledecisionmakerandfindings f madebythedecisionmakerwhichweresufficienttoestablish `  legalentitlementtothelifesentence. Z   N In Y Poland,thisCourtrevisitedRumseyand ^ Bullington N  andclearlylimiteditsholdinginBullington.Thedefendants H  inPolandwereconvictedbyajuryoffirstdegreemurder.The B trialjudgethensatasdecisionmakerataseparatesentencing <  hearingwherehewoulddeterminewhataggravatingand 6  mitigatingcircumstanceswereprovenandthenweighthese 0  circumstancestodetermineasentenceoflifeimprisonmentor *  death.TheStatepresentedevidenceoftwoaggravating $  circumstances:thatthecrimewascommitted inexpectation   ofthereceiptofsomethingofpecuniaryvalueandthatthe  crimehadbeencommittedinan especiallyheinous,cruelor  depravedmanner.Thejudgefoundonlythe especially   heinouscircumstanceandsentencedthedefendantsto  death.Onappeal,theArizonaSupremeCourtheldthatthere  wasinsufficientevidencetosupportthejudgesfindingofthe   especiallyheinouscircumstanceandthatthetrialcourt  misinterpretedthelawinrejectingtheapplicationofthe |  pecuniaryvaluecircumstance.Onremand,thedefendants v wereagaintriedandconvictedoffirstdegreemurder.The p Stateagainsoughtdeathandarguedthesametwo j aggravatingcircumstances,presentingadditionalevidence. d Thejudgefoundbothcircumstancesandsentencedthe  ^ defendantstodeath.Aftergrantingcertiorari,thisCourt !X consideredwhethertheDoubleJeopardyClausebarredthe "R reimpositionofthedeathpenalty. #L   $F  N Thedefendantsarguedthattheyhadbeenacquitted r  ofbothaggravatingcircumstances,claimingthatthetrial l courtacquittedthemofthe pecuniarygaincircumstance f whenitdidnotfindthatcircumstanceatthefirstsentencing `  andtheappellatecourtacquittedthemofthe especially Z  heinouscircumstancewhenitfoundinsufficientevidenceto T  supportitonappeal.Afterreviewingtherecordandfinding N  thatatnopointinthefirstcapitalsentencinghearingand H  appealdideitherthesentencerorthereviewingcourthold B thattheprosecutionfailedtoproveitscasethatdeathwasthe <  appropriatepunishment,thisCourtstated: 6  8 N   Werejectthefundamentalpremiseof *  petitionersargument,namely,thatacapital $  sentencersfailuretofindaparticular   aggravatingcircumstanceallegedbythe  prosecutionalwaysconstitutesan acquittal  ofthatcircumstancefordoublejeopardy   purposes.Bullingtonindicatesthat theproper  inquiryiswhetherthesentencerorthe  reviewingcourthas decidedthatthe | prosecutionhasnotproveditscasethatthe j deathpenaltyisappropriate .Wearenot X preparedtoextendBullingtonfurtherand R viewthecapitalsentencinghearingasasetof L minitrialsontheexistenceofeachaggravating F circumstance.Suchanapproachwouldpush @ theanalogyonwhichBullingtonisbasedpast  : thebreakingpoint.!4N ?N ? 8 N   Aggravatingcircumstancesarenot #( separatepenaltiesoroffenses,butare $"  standardstoguidethemakingof[the]choice %  betweenthealternativeverdictsofdeathand r lifeimprisonment.451U.S.at438.Thus, l underArizonascapitalsentencingscheme, the f judgesfindingofanyparticularaggravating `  circumstancedoesnotofitself convicta N  defendant (i.e.,requireadeathpenalty), and <  thefailuretofindanyparticularaggravating 6  circumstancedoesnot acquitadefendant  $  (i.e.,precludethedeathpenalty).N ?N ?  Y Poland,476U.S.at155( emphasisadded ).    N Ifafindingofparticularaggravatingcircumstance   doesnotbyitselfconvictandthefailuretofindaparticular   circumstancedoesnotacquitadefendantofthedeathpenalty |  underPoland,thenhowdoesthefailuretoreachaverdictat v allbecomeanacquittal?Infact,Sattazahnhadbeen p convictedoffirstdegreemurderandrobberyattheguilt j phaseofthetrial.Therefore,thejurynecessarilyhadalready d foundthatthegovernmenthadproveditsaggravating ^ circumstancethatthedefendanthadcommittedthekilling X whileintheperpetrationofafelony #  8      ׀beyondareasonable R doubt.Therefore,therecanbenoquestioninthiscase, L despitethedeadlockedjury,thatthegovernmenthad F producedsufficientevidencetoproveitscasefordeath. @  N ThedecidingfactorforthisCourtinapplyingdouble 4 jeopardyprotectionstoparticularsentencingproceedingshas  . beenthatthecapitalsentencingproceedingsunderreview !( werelikeatrialonguiltorinnocence.Ifthecapital "" sentencingproceedingislikeatrialtowarrantdouble r jeopardyprotections,thanitmustbelikeatrialwithregard l tothedefinitionofacquittals. f  N Athisfirsttrialin1991,thejuryconvictedDavid Z  Sattazahnoffirstdegreemurder.Atthesentencing T  proceedingfollowingtheguiltphaseofthetrial,thejury N  deadlockedontheissueofdeath.Sattazahnscounsel H  immediatelyrequestedthatthejurybedischargedandalife B sentencebeimposed.Afterspeakingbrieflywiththejury,the <  trialcourtdidinfactdischargethejuryandimposeda 6  sentenceoflifeimprisonmentasmandatedby p 42Pa.C.S. 0  9711(c)(1)(v).Neitherthejurynorthejudgemadeany *  findingswithregardtotheevidencepresentedbythe $  government.    N Inthemonthsfollowingthefirstdegreemurder  conviction,thedefendantenteredguiltypleastoa1987   murderinSchuylkillCounty,five1989burglariesandone  1989robberyinBerksCounty,andotherburglarychargesin  LebanonCounty.Thesecaseshadbeenchargedbutdeferred  untilhistrialwascompleted,whichhadallowedhimtooffer  asamitigatingcircumstancehislackofasignificanthistoryof | priorcriminalconvictions.Healsochosetofileanappeal v fromhisconvictionforfirstdegreemurderandthelife p sentenceimposedbythetrialcourt.Hesoughtandobtained j anewtrialbasedonajuryinstruction. d  N Afterthedefendantfiledhisappeal,theSupreme !X CourtofPennsylvaniadecided r Commonwealthv.Martorano, "R 535Pa.178,634A.2d1063(1993),acasewhichaddressed #L theCommonwealthsabilitytoseekdeathonacapitalretrial $F wherethejuryhaddeadlockedinthefirsttrialontheissueof %@  death.Thestatecourtexaminedfederalprecedentand r concludedthat,in Y Polandv.Arizona,476U.S.147,thisCourt l hadreaffirmedtheapplicationofthecleanslateruleof s North f Carolinav.Pearce,395U.S.711,unlessthesentencingjudgeor `  reviewingcourthasdecidedthattheprosecutionhasnot Z  proveditscaseforthedeathpenalty.Martorano,535Pa.at T  193,634A.2dat1070. N   N Sattazahnsfirstjurymadenofindingsandreachedno B verdict.Thetrialcourtwasnotadecisionmakeratall,but <  ratheranadministratorofastatutorilycompelledlife 6  sentence.Nofindingsofanykindweremade,letalone 0  findingssufficienttoestablishanylegalentitlementtoalife *  sentence.Sincetherehadbeennodecisionbythejury,the $  sentencingjudgeorthereviewingcourtthattheprosecution   hadnotproveditscasefordeathatSattazahnsfirst  sentencingproceeding,theCommonwealthagainsoughtthe  deathpenaltyatthesecondtrialpursuanttothisCourts1986   decisionin Y Poland.ThesecondjuryconvictedSattazahnof  firstdegreemurderandsentencedhimtodeath.   N Thedefendantarguesthat,inthefirsttrial,the  prosecutionfailedtomeetitsburdenofprovingthe | aggravatingcircumstancesbeyondareasonabledoubt v becauseitfailedtopersuadealltwelvecapitaljurorsthat p deathwastheappropriatepunishment.PetitionersBrief,at j 1617.However,thefailuretopersuadehastraditionally d resultedinahungjuryatatrial.Infact,thisCourthas  ^ recognizedthat [t]heargumentthatajurysinabilitytoagree !X establishesreasonabledoubtastothedefendantsguilt,and "R thereforerequiresacquittal,hasbeenuniformlyrejectedinthis #L  country. u Arizonav.Washington,434U.S.497,509(1978).It $F isonlythefailuretoproducesufficientevidencethathas r causeddoublejeopardyviolations. l   N TheCommonwealthsburdenofproofconsistsofthe `  burdenofproductionandtheburdenofpersuasion. w Mullaney Z  v.Wilbur,421U.S.684,702n.31(1975).AsthisCourthas T  stated: N  8 N ...Whereonepartyhasatstakeaninterestof B transcendingvalue"asacriminaldefendant <  hisliberty"thismarginoferrorisreducedas 6  tohimbytheprocessofplacingontheother 0  partytheburdenofproducingasufficiencyof *  proofinthefirstinstance,andofpersuading $  thefactfinderattheconclusionofthetrialof   hisguiltbeyondareasonabledoubt.N ?N ?  y Speiserv.Randall,357U.S.513,525(1958).    N Thedefendantcitesto { UnitedStatesv.MartinLinen  SupplyCo.,430U.S.564(1977),forthepropositionthat,when  atrialcourtentersadirectedverdictafterdischarginga  deadlockedjury,thatdirectedverdictconstitutesajudgment | ofacquittal.PetitionersBrief,at25.However,inMartin v Linen,thedirectedverdictwasenteredaftertheDistrictCourt p evaluatedtheevidenceanddeterminedthatitwaslegally j insufficienttosustainaconviction.MartinLinen,430U.S.at d 572.AtSattazahnsfirsttrial,thejudgewhoimposedthelife  ^ sentenceconductednoevaluationoftheevidenceandneither !X thejurynorthejudgemadeafindingthattheevidencewas "R insufficienttoimposedeath. #L   $F  N Inthesamemanner,thedefendantcitesto } Smalisv. r  Pennsylvania,476U.S.140(1986),asholdingthat,oncea l defendantisacquitted,whetherbythejuryorthecourt,the f defendantcannotbesubjectedtopostacquittal,factfinding `  proceedingsgoingtoguiltorinnocencewithoutviolatingthe Z  DoubleJeopardyClause.PetitionersBrief,at25.Whilethat, T  infact,istheholdingofSmalis,thisCourtreachedthat N  holdingbyreasoningthatthegrantofademurrerbythetrial H  courtisanacquittalbecauseitisarulingbythetrialcourt B thatthegovernmentsevidenceisinsufficienttoestablishhis <  factualguilt.Smalis,476U.S.at144.Onceagain,neitherthe 6  jurynorthejudgeatSattazahnsfirsttrialeverdetermined 0  thattheevidencewasinsufficienttoimposedeath. *   N NeitherMartinLinennorSmalisstandforthe   propositionthatwhenthegovernmentfailstomeetitsburden  ofpersuasionitisbarredfromretrialbytheDoubleJeopardy  Clause.Rather,theystandforthepropositionthat,whenthe   governmentfailstomeetitsburdenofproduction,theDouble  JeopardyClausebarsretrial.   N In  UnitedStatesv.Perez,22U.S.579(1924),the  governmentfailedtomeetitsburdenofpersuasionandthe | juryhungonthedefendantsguiltinacapitalcase.This v Courtheldthat ...thefactsconstitutenolegalbartoafuture p trial.Theprisonerhasnotbeenconvictedoracquitted,and j mayagainbeputuponhisdefence.Perez,22U.S.at580.In d Sattazahnsfirsttrial,theCommonwealthfailedtomeetits  ^ burdenofpersuasioninthesentencingproceedingandthe !X jurydidnotreturnaverdict.JustasinPerez,thedefendant "R wasnotconvictedoracquittedandthereshouldbenobarto #L afuturetrial. $F  %@   N In f Richardsonv.UnitedStates,468U.S.317,thisCourt r reiteratedthat wehaveconstantlyadheredtotherulethat l aretrialfollowingahungjurydoesnotviolatetheDouble f JeopardyClause.Richardson,468U.S.at324.ThisCourt `  heldthatdoublejeopardyprotectiononlyapplies iftherehas Z  beensomeevent,suchasanacquittal,whichterminatesthe T  originaljeopardyandthatahungjuryisnottheequivalent N  ofanacquittal.Richardson,468U.S.at325. [T]hefailureof H  ajurytoreachaverdictisnotaneventwhichterminates B jeopardy.Richardson,468U.S.at325. <   N Thedeterminationthatjeopardyhasattachedbegins 0  butdoesnotendtheinquiryintowhetherretrialisbarredby *  theDoubleJeopardyClause.  Serfassv.UnitedStates,420U.S. $  377,389(1975).TheCommonwealthagreeswiththe   defendantthatjeopardyattachestothePennsylvaniacapital  sentencingproceeding,asdeterminedbythisCourtin   ^ Bullingtonand _ Rumsey.TheCommonwealthdoesnotagree   withthedefendantsconclusionthatthisCourthasheldthat  thenatureoftheproceedingnecessarilyrequiresadouble  jeopardybartoseekingthedeathpenaltyonretrial.   N IninterpretingtheDoubleJeopardyClause,thisCourt | hasdisparagedtheuseofrigidmechanicalrules.  Serfass,420 v U.S.at389.Whiletheprohibitionagainstmultipletrialsisthe p constitutionalprincipleindoublejeopardyanalysis,thebarto j retrialisnotabsolute.  UnitedStatesv.DiFrancesco,449U.S. d 117,132(1980).Itisanacquittalwhichbarsretrial,evenif  ^ theacquittalisanerror.DiFrancesco,449U.S.at132;  United !X Statesv.Scott,437U.S.83,91; ^ Bullington,451U.S.at445; "R  _ Rumsey,467U.S.at211; Y Poland,476U.S.at15657. #L   $F  N ThisCourthasrepeatedlyrecognizedthat what r  constitutesanacquittalisnottobecontrolledbytheformof l thejudgesaction.  MartinLinen,430U.S.at571;  Serfass,420 f U.S.at392;  Scott,427U.S.at9697. [A]nappealisnot `  barred[ondoublejeopardygrounds]simplybecausearuling Z  infavorofadefendantisbaseduponfactsoutsidethefaceof T  theindictment...Scott,437U.S.at96.Anacquittalfor N  purposesofdoublejeopardyoccurs onlywhentherulingof H  thejudge,whateveritslabel,actuallyrepresentsaresolution B [inthedefendantsfavor],correctornot,ofsomeorallofthe <  factualelementsoftheoffensecharges.Scott,437U.S.at97, 6  (quotingMartinLinen,430U.S.at571). 0   N ThisCourthasrecognizedthat: $  8 N ...adefendantwhohasbeenreleasedbyacourt  forreasonsrequiredbytheConstitutionor  laws,butwhichareunrelatedtofactualguilt   orinnocence,hasnotbeendeterminedtobe  innocentinanysenseofthatword,absoluteor  otherwise.Inothercircumstances,thisCourt  hashadnodifficultyindistinguishingbetween  thoserulingswhichrelatetotheultimate | questionofguiltorinnocenceandthosewhich v serveotherpurposes.pN ?N ? Scott,437U.S.at98,n.11(citationomitted).Themandatory d rulinginSattazahnsfirsttrialthatresultedintheimposition  ^ ofalifesentencedidnotrelateinanywaytotheultimate !X questionofwhetherdeathwastheappropriatesentencefor "R Sattazahn. #L   $F  N AlthoughSattazahnrepeatedlyreferstothelife r  sentenceimposedbythetrialcourtathisfirsttrialasan l  acquittalofdeathora directedlifeverdict,thelife f sentenceimposedsimplyfailstomeettheaccepteddefinition `  ofacquittal.Theimpositionofthelifesentenceinthiscase Z  madenoresolutionofanyofthefactualelementsinvolvedin T  thecapitalsentencingproceeding.Firstofall,thejurymade N  nofindingsatallinfailingtoreachaverdict.Thenthejudge H  simplyfollowedthestatuteand,withoutconsideringthe B evidencepresented,imposedasentenceoflife,againwithno <  findingsofanyfactualelements. 6   N Sattazahnstatesthat [t]hisCourtsconceptionofan *   acquittalofdeathistheimpositionofalifesentenceaftera $  triallikeproceedingtriedtocompletionandcitesto  Schirov.   Farley,510U.S.222,232(1994); Y Polandv.Arizona,476U.S.at  152;  Smalisv.Pennsylvania,476U.S.at145n.8; _ Arizonav.  Rumsey,467U.S.at211;and ^ Bullingtonv.Missouri,451U.S.   at44546.PetitionersBrief,at29.TheCommonwealth  contendsthatSattazahnoverstateseachofthecitedcases.   N Aspreviouslysetforth,BullingtonandRumseyresulted  fromdefinitivelifesentencesimposedbythedecisionmakers, | thuslogicallyresultinginacquittalsofdeath. Y Poland v specificallystatesthattherelevantinquiryarisingfrom p BullingtonandRumseywaswhetherthesentencerorthe j reviewingcourthasdeterminedthattheprosecutionhasnot d proveditscaseforthedeathpenaltynotmerelywhethera  ^ lifesentencewasimposedattheconclusionofatriallike !X proceeding. Y Poland,476U.S.at154.Polandstatedthat "R  ^ Bullingtonand _ Rumseyrequire anacquittalonthemeritsby #L  thesoledecisionmakerforthedecisiontobefinal,barring $F retrialonthesameissue,andrefusedtoextendBullingon r further.Poland,476U.S.at154,15667. l   N Sattazahnarguesthatthe  Smalistrialcourtsgrantof `  ademurreristhesameasthelifesentenceimposedinthe Z  instantcase.Thisargumentignoresthefactthattherulingin T  Smalisresultedfromthetrialcourtsdecisionthattheevidence N  presentedwasinsufficienttogotothejury.Thisdecisionby H  thejudgeinSmaliscouldonlyhavebeenreachedafterhe B reviewedtheevidenceanddeterminedthatthegovernment <  failedtomeetitsburdenofproduction,followingestablished 6  precedentwithregardtoacquittals,whichwouldbarretrial. 0  Intheinstantcase,thejudgereviewednoevidenceandmade *  nodeterminationregardingthegovernmentsevidence, $  therebycorrespondingtoestablishedprecedentwithregard   tohungjuries,whichallowsretrials.   N Theargumentraisedin  Schirowasthatthe   governmentwasprecludedbytheDoubleJeopardyClause  andthedoctrineofcollateralestoppelfromseekingthedeath  penaltyaftertheguiltphasejuryfoundhimguiltyofthe  countwhichchargedthathekilledhisvictimwhile  committingthecrimeofrape,andlefttheverdictslipblanka