The following excerpt is from U.S. v. Bates, 917 F.2d 388 (9th Cir. 1991):
The majority reasons as follows. Defendants neither expressly nor impliedly consented to the judge's sua sponte declaration of a mistrial, and would have objected if given a chance. This implicates one of the central protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause: the assurance that "the defendant retain primary control over the course to be followed in the event of [judicial or prosecutorial] error." United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 609, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1080, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976). Therefore, the "manifest necessity" test applies. Because the judge declared the mistrial when it was not manifestly necessary, the
Page 400
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.