Appellate Law

CA1: Defendant wins big double jeopardy case

By S. COTUS

US v. Lara-Ramirez, No. 06-2108.  In the underlying trial, a bible was discovered in the jury room, and some indication that a jury was relying on the bible.  (I think the District Court judge did a good job of investigating this issue, but the First disgarees.) At the prosecutor?s request, the judge declared a mistrial, ?without his consent and without the required showing of manifest necessity.? The court analyzes the ?manifest necessity? factors.  The First says that the court wasn?t really considering the deadlock as that important a factor, and says that the District Court judge muddled the issues of deadlock and the bible and therefore the record isn?t sufficient to understand just how deadlocked (an unAllenable) the jury was.   The First says that the judge didn?t question all the jurors.  It ends by giving defendants some good language, such as ?...concern for the sanctity of jury deliberations may not be elevated above the defendant's right to have his fate decided by the first jury empaneled in his case.?  It also notes that a bible is no different from any other extraneous material in the courtroom (even though it needs to be handled delicately), and there is no per se bar on bibles. 

It also notes that curative instruction can be given to a jury after they start deliberating.

The First analyzes whether counsel for the defendant consented, and finds no indication that he did.

Full post as published by Appellate Law and Practice on March 11, 2008 (boomark / email).