Renico v. Lett
2010 United States Supreme Court case
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the court held that the trial court's decision in this case was not unreasonable under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996. A federal habeas court must be deferential to the state trial court, including its decision about whether a jury was deadlocked.
Background
From jury selection to jury instructions in a Michigan court, Lett's first trial for, among other things, first-degree murder took less than nine hours. During approximately four hours of deliberations, the jury sent the trial court seven notes, including one asking what would happen if the jury could not agree. The judge called the jury and the attorneys into the courtroom and questioned the foreperson, who said that the jury was unable to reach a unanimous verdict. The judge then declared a mistrial, dismissed the jury, and scheduled a new trial. At Lett's second trial, after deliberating for only 3 hours and 15 minutes, a new jury found him guilty of second-degree murder.
On appeal within the state's system, Lett argued that because the judge in his first trial had announced a mistrial without any manifest necessity to do so, the Double Jeopardy Clause barred the state from trying him a second time. Agreeing, the Michigan Court of Appeals reversed the conviction.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “Renico v. Lett” is 2010 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through Renico, Lett and United, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “2010 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated May 1, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q138034865. None of the 0 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 2010 and 1996.
A concise general-reference account can conceal disagreements about scope, terminology or the weight assigned to individual sources. The source lead contains qualifying language; that uncertainty should survive quotation, summary and reuse. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “Renico v. Lett”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow Renico v. Lett primary sources, Renico v. Lett archive and Renico research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “Renico v. Lett”?
- Which institution is responsible for the underlying evidence?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “Renico v. Lett” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.