Skip to content
Name: Carrillo v. Superior Court of Los Angeles
Case #: B191701
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 2 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 12/21/2006

Where no legal necessity exists for the court's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial, double jeopardy attaches so as to bar retrial. Once a defendant is placed on trial in a court of competent jurisdiction, on a valid accusatory pleading, before a jury duly impaneled and sworn, a discharge of that jury without a verdict is equivalent in law to an acquittal and bars a retrial, unless the defendant consents to the discharge or legal necessity requires it. Here, the trial court in a murder trial found that defense counsel was ineffective for failing to suppress defendant's statement…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Smith
Case #: A106685
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 1 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 09/14/2005

Following a mistrial, appellant was convicted in a court retrial of multiple offenses against his former spouse. On appeal, he argued that the trial court violated his right to a jury trial by failing to obtain a second in-court waiver of his jury right before retrying him. The appellate court rejected the argument. There was no dispute that there was a valid waiver of a jury, prior to the first trial. As long as the second trial comes about as the result of a mistrial rather than a reversal on appeal, the defendant's consent to a…

View Full Summary
Name: U.S. v. Bonas
Case #: 02-50631
Court: US Court of Appeals
District 9 Cir
Opinion Date: 09/17/2003
Subsequent History: None

After a jury had been empaneled, the court discovered there had been no inquiry by the clerk's office regarding financial hardship, and after unsuccessfully attempting to find ways of paying the four jurors who were not compensated by their employers, the court declared a mistrial, finding a manifest necessity existed. The defense objected. The Ninth Circuit held the record did not support a finding of manifest necessity. The jurors themselves were not asked their views on the financial hardship issue and the trial was expected to last about four days, two of which had already passed. Thus, appellant could…

View Full Summary
Name: Evans v. Superior Court
Case #: D041204
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 1
Opinion Date: 07/30/2003
Subsequent History: Rehrg. denied 8/28/03

During Evans' trial for robbery, the trial court became aware that a juror had failed to fully disclose her potential bias against the prosecution. Over the objections of both parties, the trial court dismissed the juror after concluding that she could not be fair. Both alternates had already been dismissed, so the court declared a mistrial. When the prosecution refiled the charges, petitioner moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied the motion, and petitioner filed this petition for writ of mandate. Here, the appellate court granted the writ and ordered the…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Ayala
Case #: S013188
Court: CA Supreme Court
District CalSup
Opinion Date: 08/28/2000
Subsequent History: Modification of opinion, 24 Cal.4th 467b; rehearing denied 11/15/00

The California Supreme Court agreed with the decisions of most jurisdictions that ex parte proceedings following a motion regarding peremptory challenges to the jury made on the basis of improper group bias are poor procedure and should not be conducted unless compelling reasons justify them. Here the trial court abused its discretion in implicitly finding that the prosecution presented matters of strategy which justified holding ex parte hearings on challenges made under People v. Wheeler (1978) 22 Cal.3d 258. While United States v. Thompson (9th Cir. 1987) 827 F.2d 1254, 1256, fn. 1, observed that excluding the defense…

View Full Summary
Name: People v. Castro
Case #: E026619
Court: CA Court of Appeal
District 4 DCA
Division: 2
Opinion Date: 03/28/2001
Subsequent History: Modif. of opn. on den. of rehg. 88 Cal.App.4th 875a; Rev. grtd 7/11/01 as S097172

Where a mistrial is declared because of "legal necessity," the double jeopardy clauses of the state and federal Constitutions do not bar a second trial for the same offense. Therefore, where the public defender declared a conflict on the eve of trial after the jury had been selected, and a 120 day continuance was required to allow alternate counsel to prepare, the mistrial was legally necessary because the jury had already been sworn and it would have caused extremely difficult problems to recall the jury 120 days later. Because appellant had the ability to pay his $5,200. restitution…

View Full Summary