A Michigan inmate who argued the judge in his first murder trial was too quick to call a mistrial has lost his appeal before the U.S. Supreme Court.

The Michigan Supreme Court had ruled against defendant Reginald Lett’s double jeopardy claim. The Michigan court’s determination was not necessarily correct—but it was not an unreasonable application of clearly established law, the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled in a 6-3 opinion (PDF). Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. wrote for the majority.

The judge in the first trial had visited the jury room after receiving two notes from the jury. One expressed concern about “our voice levels disturbing any other proceedings.” The other asked what happens if jurors can’t agree.

This exchange occurred between the judge and the jury foreman:

“THE COURT: I need to ask you if the jury is deadlocked; in other words, is there a disagreement as to the verdict?

“THE FOREPERSON: Yes, there is.

“THE COURT: All right. Do you believe that it is hopelessly deadlocked?

“THE FOREPERSON: The majority of us don’t believe that—

“THE COURT: (Interposing) Don’t say what you’re going to say, okay?

“THE FOREPERSON: Oh, I’m sorry.

“THE COURT: I don’t want to know what your verdict might be, or how the split is, or any of that. Thank you. Okay? Are you going to reach a unanimous verdict, or not?

“THE FOREPERSON: (No response)

“THE COURT: Yes or no?

“THE FOREPERSON: No, Judge.”

The judge declared a mistrial, and neither the prosecutor nor Lett’s lawyer objected. The second jury convicted Lett of second-degree murder after deliberating for a little more than three hours.

Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the dissent. He was joined by Justice Sonia Sotomayor and joined in part by Justice Stephen G. Breyer.