What legal standards determine whether a vacated state conviction can be retried in New York?
Executive summary
New York law governs vacatur through Article 440 of the Criminal Procedure Law, which lets a court vacate a judgment for specified grounds (new evidence, constitutional error, retroactive changes in law, decriminalization, trafficking-victim status, etc.) and gives trial courts discretion to either dismiss charges or order a new trial when a conviction is vacated [1] [2] [3]. Whether the state may retry a defendant after vacatur is controlled by a mix of CPL procedure, federal and state double‑jeopardy doctrine, and case‑specific remand orders; the U.S. Supreme Court has held that vacation of a conviction for errors unrelated to inconsistent jury findings does not automatically bar retrial [4] [5].
1. What statutes set the baseline for vacatur — Article 440 explained
The primary vehicle is CPL § 440.10 (Article 440), which authorizes a motion to vacate “at any time after entry of a judgment” on enumerated grounds including newly discovered evidence, constitutional violations, changes in law applied retroactively, and convictions rendered legal nullities by decriminalization; New York’s 2021 legislative changes expanded grounds and clarified retroactivity and special provisions like trafficking‑victim vacatur [1] [2] [6].
2. Who bears the burden and what procedural limits apply to vacatur motions
The defendant/applicant bears the burden to prove entitlement to vacatur, generally by a preponderance of evidence, and motions are subject to procedural bars where an issue was “previously determined on the merits” on appeal unless a retroactive change in law intervened; successive 440 motions are disfavored absent a strong reason for delay or new retroactive law [7] [8] [3].
3. If a conviction is vacated, when will the court order a new trial versus dismissal?
Article 440 gives the trial court discretion: if the vacatur is based on error that affects the validity of the conviction but the prosecution can retry, courts commonly remand for a new trial; where evidence is lacking, or vacatur stems from proof of actual innocence or statutory decriminalization that makes the conviction a “legal nullity,” courts may dismiss and/or order expungement or sealing where statutory schemes provide [3] [2] [1].
4. How double‑jeopardy and issue‑preclusion doctrines interact with retrial after vacatur
Federal double‑jeopardy precedent makes the controlling point: the U.S. Supreme Court in cases like Bravo‑Fernandez/related decisions has ruled that vacatur based on legal error (such as faulty jury instructions) does not automatically preclude retrial even where inconsistent verdicts occurred, because issue‑preclusion (collateral estoppel) does not bar the government when the vacatur did not rest on factual findings that negate the prosecution’s theory; that federal rule has been applied in analyses of retrial risk after vacatur [4] [5].
5. Practical and statutory exceptions that can prevent retrial in New York
Statutory reforms and specialized provisions can block retrial in discrete contexts: automatic vacatur/expungement for certain low‑level marijuana offenses under MRTA and related statutes removes the conviction as a legal basis for prosecution, trafficking‑victim vacatur statutes allow dismissal and sealing, and where a higher court’s vacatur explicitly orders dismissal the prosecution cannot retry [6] [9] [2]. Outside those statutes, however, retrial remains a realistic outcome when vacatur reflects reversible legal error, not a factual vindication.
6. What reporting doesn’t fully answer and where state practice varies
The provided materials establish statutory framework, burden rules, and the federal rule on retrial after vacatur, but they do not catalog New York appellate decisions that apply the federal double‑jeopardy holdings to specific post‑vacatur retrials nor fully map how New York trial courts exercise discretion across different vacatur grounds; therefore, a case‑by‑case review of New York holdings and any explicit appellate remand language is necessary to predict retrial outcomes with certainty [8] [4] [7].