1. Facts of the case: The case that I’m doing is Bobby vs. Bies, this is a very hard case for me because it has to do with the murder, kidnapping, and rape of a ten year old boy, this happened in 1992. Aaron Raines was found dead in the basement of a Cincinnati building. His autopsy suggested he had been severely beaten with a piece of concrete and a metal pipe, strangled with twine and kicked. Bies eventually admitted involvement and was convicted for Aaron's murder. Michael Bies was convicted to a death sentence in Supreme Court of Ohio in October 13, 1992. Michael Bies appealed his sentenced and argued that he was mentally retarded and this fact should mitigate his sentence. Among several clams for relief, Petitioner argued that the mentally retarded are protected by the eighth amendment against cruel and unusual punishment because a national consensus against executing the mentally retarded reflects the standard of decency in the united stated. Since the court had indicated that he was mentally retarded, and re-litigating the issue would violate the double jeopardy clause of the Fifth Amendment.

2. Issue of the case: The case is before the court because Michael Bies murdered, kidnapped, and raped Aaron Raines. During the penalty phase of the trial, Bies presented the testimony of a clinical psychologist as mitigating evidence. The psychologist Doctor Dona Winter testified that Bies IQ of 69 that placed him in the range of being "mildly to borderline mentally retarded." She also testified that she believed Bies knew the difference between right and wrong at the time of Aaron's murder. Bies was sentenced to death. Petitioner appealed both his conviction and his death sentence to the Ohio Court of Appeals. Michael Bies appealed the court, the district court agreed and granted Mr. Bies' petition for habeas corpus relief and ordered that he be resentenced. On appeal, Petitioner argued that he was mentally retarded, and that this mental retardation was a mitigation factor which should permit him to receive a sentence other than death. In response to these arguments, the government questioned Petitioner’s assertion that Petitioner does not suffer from mental retardation.

3. Decision of the court – how was the case decided, including an analysis of any concurring or dissenting opinions in previous case precedent Both courts affirmed his conviction and sentence, but agreed that he was mentally retarded. While Mr. Bies proceeded with his post-conviction appeals, the Supreme Court rendered its decision in the precedent of Atkins v Virginia stating that "death is not a suitable punishment for mentally retarded people." He subsequently filed a petition for habeas corpus relief in an Ohio federal district court relying on Atkins. In response, the state claimed that Mr. Bies was not mentally retarded. Mr. Bies argued that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the state from relitigating the fact of his mental retardation. The Double Jeopardy clause comes into play only if a person is "for the same offence ... twice same crime on the same set of facts. At common law a defendant may plead autrefois acquit or autrefois convict (a peremptory plea), meaning the defendant has been acquitted or convicted of the same offense.[1] If this issue is raised, evidence will be placed before the court, which will normally rule as a preliminary matter whether the plea is substantiated, and if it so finds, the projected trial will be prevented from proceeding “Definition by Wikipedia.”A lot of the arguments they had was that Bies has only been tried for murder once.

4. Reasoning of the court -- analysis of the thinking process and logic used by previous judges I believe this was is a very hard case for the judges especially because the precedent was established ten year after Bies committed the crime. The jury recommended a death sentence, which the trial court imposed. Ohio’s Court of Appeals and Supreme Court affirmed the conviction and sentence, each concluding that Bies’ mental retardation was entitled to “some weight” as a mitigating factor, but that the aggravating circumstances outweighed the mitigating circumstances. Bies then filed an unsuccessful petition for state post conviction relief, contending for the first time that the Eighth Amendment prohibits execution of a mentally retarded defendant. Soon after Bies sought federal habeas relief, this Court decided Atkins. The opinion left to the States the task of developing appropriate ways to determine when a person claiming mental retardation would fall within Atkins’ compass. Ohio heeded Atkins ‘call in State v. Lott. The District Court then stayed Bies’ federal habeas proceedings so that he could present an Atkins claim to the state post conviction court. Observing that Bies’ mental retardation had not previously been established under the Atkins-Lott framework, the state court denied Bies’ motion for summary judgment and ordered a full hearing on the Atkins claim. Rather than proceeding with that hearing, Bies returned to federal court, arguing that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the State from relit gating the mental retardation issue. The District Court granted the habeas petition, and the Sixth Circuit affirmed. Relying on Ashe v. Swenson, the Court of Appeals determined that all requirements for the issue preclusion component of the Double Jeopardy Clause were met in Bies’ case. It concluded, inter alia, that the Ohio Supreme Court, on direct appeal, had decided the mental retardation issue under the same standard that court later adopted in Lott, and that the state court’s recognition of Bies’ mental state had been necessary to the death penalty judgment. When the Sixth Circuit denied the State’s petition for rehearing en banc, a concurring judge offered an alternative basis for decision.

5. Rule of law -- a concise summary of the main precedent established. The main precedents of this case was the Penry that made Bies get a life sentence, Atkins vs. Virginia were it prohibits the conviction of a retarded person to the death sentence because of the Eight Amendment. The Double Jeopardy clause also helped Bies because he didn’t commit the same crime twice, it was three different crimes so he got lucky he didn’t rape, killed, or murdered the ten year old boy twice.

6. Your own argument. Did you agree or disagree with the ruling. Provide some authority for your argument. In this ruling I have to disagree on how everything when down. There was a lot of things I didn’t like or didn’t really make sense to me, for example I didn’t like that fact that a rapes, murder, and killer of a ten year old boy has to go through a mental evaluation to know that his not mentally fit, they almost make it seem it’s an everyday thing that someone goes and rapes, kills, and murders someone. I mean it should be a bias that there is something mentally wrong with this individual no one in their right mind would be able to do such a thing, I think it’s an insult to the retarded people that they can categorize Bies with them. There are so many retarded people or I must say handicap or with a low IQ that would not be able to do such a thing, and plus at the time of crime Bies knew the difference of right and wrong and still was they still made excuses for him. I could understand if he did not know the difference of right and wrong but that was not his problem. I really don’t know how I feel about the death sentence, I don’t know if I agree with it or disagree with it as a punishment. I just didn’t like the rout that this case toke, it just seems it toke a whole new direction once they knew his IQ was 69, I don’t understand why they didn’t take to consideration that the doctor said that he did know the difference between right and wrong.

7. Dissent – if the case wasn’t decided 9-0, what did the justices who ruled against the majority?
think about their case? Under Sattazahn v. Pennsylvania, jeopardy attaches once a capital defendant is “acquitted” based on findings establishing an entitlement to a life sentence; reasoning that the Ohio courts’ mental retardation findings entitled Bies to a life sentence, he concluded that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred any renewed inquiry into Bies’ mental state.