Mincey v. Arizona
Docket: A-302 (77-5353)
Court: Supreme Court of the United States; December 6, 1977; Federal Supreme Court; Federal Appellate Court
Rufus Junior Mincey was convicted of murder, assault, and drug offenses related to an incident at his Tucson apartment. The Arizona Supreme Court reversed the murder and assault convictions due to improper jury instructions but upheld the drug convictions. Mincey requested a stay of his retrial for the murder and assault charges, scheduled for November 4, asserting that evidence admitted at his first trial was obtained in violation of his constitutional rights. Although this evidence was deemed admissible in his previous trial, Mincey is seeking review of this determination through a pending certiorari petition. The Court noted that Mincey's petition lacks clarity regarding which aspects of the Arizona Supreme Court's judgment he seeks to challenge. It concluded that constitutional claims related to evidence admission can only be reviewed as they pertain to the affirmed drug counts, not the reversed murder and assault counts, which are not final under 28 U.S.C. 1257. The Court assumed that a reversal of the drug convictions would necessitate a similar outcome for the retrial of the murder charge if the same evidence were used. The Court found no need for speculation on whether the petition would garner support from four Justices, asserting that even if granted, Mincey's application for a stay should be denied. The constitutional right he claims does not extend to protection against a second trial, unlike protections under the Double Jeopardy Clause. Instead, his claims about evidence admission can be addressed through standard post-trial review processes. Thus, the motion to stay the trial was denied.