Follow Us

Facebooktwitterrss
≡ Menu

C. Retrial after mistrial

Renico v. Lett, USSC No. 09-338, 5/3/10 The state court’s conclusion of manifest necessity for mistrial where the foreperson reported inability to reach unanimity wasn’t unreasonable, hence grant of habeas relief is vacated: … (T)rial judges may declare a mistrial “whenever, in their opinion, taking all the circumstances into consideration, there is a manifest necessity”… Read More

{ 0 comments }

court of  appeals decision (3-judge; not recommended for publication); for Jackson: Mark S. Rosen; BiC: Resp.; Reply Double Jeopardy – Retrial Following Mistrial Mistrial on defendant’s motion, occasioned by prosecutorial failure to disclose that witness was cooperating with police in separate investigation of Jackson, didn’t bar retrial: there was no showing that the prosecutor was… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Otis G. Mattox, 2006 WI App 110 For Mattox: Scott D. Obernberger Issue: Whether grant of mistrial over objection, after defense counsel was held in contempt for supposedly violating a court order with respect to questioning a witness, was manifestly necessary so as to permit retrial. Holding: ¶19      As noted, the chief concerns of… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Richard A. Moeck, 2005 WI 57, affirming 2004 WI App 47 For Moeck: David D. Cook Issue/Holding1: ¶37 A mistrial is warranted if the mistrial is “manifestly necessary.” The State bears the burden to demonstrate that a “‘manifest necessity’ [exists] for any mistrial ordered over the objection of the defendant.” A “manifest necessity” warranting a… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Barbara E. Harp, 2005 WI App 250 For Harp: Aaron N. Halstead, Kathleen Meter Lounsbury, Danielle L. Carne Issue/Holding: ¶13      The Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution and article I, section 8 of the Wisconsin Constitution prevent the state from trying a defendant multiple times for the same offense. [4] “[G]iven the importance of… Read More

{ 0 comments }

State v. Clyde Baily Williams, 2004 WI App 56, federal habeas denied, Williams v. Bartow, 481 F.3d 492 (7th Cir 2007) For Williams: Margaret A. Maroney, SPD, Madison Appellate Issue/Holding: ¶22. We begin by addressing Williams’ double jeopardy claim. He submits that the trial court failed to exercise “sound discretion” in declaring a mistrial after his counsel… Read More

{ 0 comments }