mistrial

(redirected from mistrials)
Also found in: Dictionary, Thesaurus, Encyclopedia.

Mistrial

A courtroom trial that has been terminated prior to its normal conclusion. A mistrial has no legal effect and is considered an invalid or nugatory trial. It differs from a "new trial," which recognizes that a trial was completed but was set aside so that the issues could be tried again.

A judge may declare a mistrial for several reasons, including lack of jurisdiction, incorrect jury selection, or a deadlocked, or hung, jury. A deadlocked jury—where the jurors cannot agree over the defendant's guilt or innocence—is a common reason for declaring a mistrial. Extraordinary circumstances, such as death or illness of a necessary juror or an attorney, may also result in a mistrial. A mistrial may also result from a fundamental error so prejudicial to the defendant that it cannot be cured by appropriate instructions to the jury, such as improper remarks made during the prosecution's summation.

In determining whether to declare a mistrial, the court must decide whether the error is so prejudicial and fundamental that expenditure of further time and expense would be wasteful, if not futile. Although the judge has the power to declare a mistrial and discharge a jury, this power should be "exercised with great care and only in cases of absolute necessity" (Salvatore v. State of Florida, 366 So. 2d 745 [Fla. 1978], cert. denied, 444 U.S. 885, 100 S. Ct. 177, 62 L. Ed. 2d 115 [1979]).

For example, in Ferguson v. State, 417 So. 2d 639 (Fla. 1982), the defendant moved for a mistrial because of an allegedly improper comment made by the prosecution during closing argument. The prosecution stated that not only was defense counsel asking the jury to find a scapegoat for the defendant's guilt, he was also putting the blame on someone who had already been found guilty. The appellate court found that the lower court had properly denied the motion for a mistrial because the prosecutor's comment fell within the bounds of "fair reply."

A mistrial in a criminal prosecution may prevent retrial under the Double Jeopardy provision of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits an individual from being tried twice for the same offense, unless required by the interests of justice and depending on which party moved for the mistrial. Typically, there is no bar to a retrial if the defendant requests or consents to a mistrial. A retrial may be barred if the court grants a mistrial without the defendant's consent, or over his objection. If the mistrial results from judicial or prosecutorial misconduct, a retrial will be barred. In United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470, 91 S. Ct. 547, 27 L. Ed. 2d 543 (1971), the Supreme Court held that reprosecuting the defendant would constitute double jeopardy because the judge had abused his discretion in declaring a mistrial. On his own motion, the judge had declared a mistrial to enable government witnesses to consult with their own attorneys.

Cross-references

Criminal Procedure; Harmless Error; Hung Jury.

mistrial

n. the termination of a trial before its normal conclusion because of a procedural error, statements by a witness, judge or attorney which prejudice a jury, a deadlock by a jury without reaching a verdict after lengthy deliberation (a "hung" jury), or the failure to complete a trial within the time set by the court. When such situations arise, the judge, either on his own initiative or upon the motion (request) of one of the parties will "declare a mistrial," dismiss the jury if there is one, and direct that the lawsuit or criminal prosecution be set for trial again, starting from the beginning. (See: trial)

mistrial

a trial made void because of some error, such as a defect in procedure. In the US an inconclusive trial, as when a jury cannot agree on a verdict.

MISTRIAL. An erroneous trial on account of some defect in the persons trying, as if the jury come from the wrong county or because there was no issue formed, as if no plea be entered; or some other defect of jurisdiction. 3 Cro. 284; Hob. 5; 2 M. & S. 270.

References in periodicals archive ?
It will analyze the three factors that courts have held to be significant when determining whether to grant a mistrial because of Internet or cell phone use.
Courts have held that when jurors merely text message, call, or post information online about a case to nonjurors, these are insufficient grounds for a mistrial. However, if a juror receives outside information by using the Internet or a cell phone, courts are more likely to grant a mistrial.
McNeely, (25) the court denied the defendant's motion for a mistrial because the juror had merely posted about the case online rather than receiving outside information.
(2) Before discharging jurors in a case that ended in a mistrial, Worcester Superior Court Judge Peter W.
Conventional wisdom holds that cases ending in mistrials are marginal to begin with.
Perhaps demonstrating that mistrials can be a blessing for whoever performed the worst at trial, (90) the Tyco prosecutors learned from their mistakes.
But at the end of the day, we can only speculate on the myriad reasons why these cases resulted in mistrials and partial acquittals.
This Part examines two lines of double jeopardy cases: those dealing with reversals of convictions on appeal and those dealing with the effect of prosecutorial misconduct on the permissibility of retrial after a mistrial. Section II.A discusses the rationale of the appellate-reversal cases and contends that current double jeopardy rules governing retrial after reversal fail to address the impact on the double jeopardy balance of intentional prosecutorial misconduct in the submission of tainted evidence.
Two fundamental rules traditionally governed double jeopardy protection in the mistrial context.
The second rule was that, if a defendant himself successfully moved for a mistrial, the Double Jeopardy Clause would not bar the State from retrying the defendant.(72) Like the manifest-necessity rule, this rule protected society's interest in one full and fair opportunity to prove the defendant's guilt.
In cases where the jury is able to agree on greater charges but not on lesser charges, some states require a verdict to be entered on the greater charges--a "partial verdict"--prior to the declaration of a mistrial so as not to offend double jeopardy and prevent a defendant from being retried on those charges.
In 2012, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether the Double Jeopardy Clause would prevent retrying Blueford on all charges, focusing on whether or not the jury reached a verdict and whether or not a mistrial was properly declared.