Quote:
Originally Posted by DJ's left nut
My recollection is that a mistrial issued based on a motion by the defendant terminates double jeopardy, though.
I don't recall exactly what the rule is, but unless the prosecution asked for the mistrial (they clearly didn't), I believe the mistrial essentially acts as a non-suit and the case can be re-tried unless the court determines that the defendant would be materially prejudiced by the sequence of events.
We'll find out in a few weeks, but I don't think Rajah is off the hook just yet.
|
Found it - US v. Scott; 437 U. S. 82
http://supreme.justia.com/us/437/82/
Quote:
|
In a situation such as the instant one, where a defendant chooses to avoid conviction not because of his assertion that the Government has failed to make out a case against him, but because of a legal claim that the Government's case against him must fail even though it might satisfy the trier of fact that he was guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, the defendant, by deliberately choosing to seek termination of the trial, suffers no injury cognizable under the Double Jeopardy Clause if the Government is permitted to appeal from such a trial court ruling favoring the defendant. The Double Jeopardy Clause, which guards against Government oppression, does not relieve a defendant of the consequences of his voluntary choice.
|
The facts can be distinguished, but the rule of law therein really can't.
In the event the
defendant seeks to have the proceedings terminated without a determination as to his ultimate guilt or innocence, he can be re-tried.