holding that a trial judge’s decision to grant State’s request for a mistrial in order to allow the State an opportunity to shore up weaknesses in its case against the defendant did not meet the manifest-necessity requirement
How later courts described this case
- holding that a trial judge’s decision to grant State’s request for a mistrial in order to allow the State an opportunity to shore up weaknesses in its case against the defendant did not meet the manifest-necessity requirement
- holding double jeopardy 40 protections applied when government's case lacked proof after witness, who had participated in the crime, invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self- incrimination without government seeking an agreement to secure testimony
- holding double jeopardy protections applied when government's case lacked proof after witness, who had participated in the crime, invoked his Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination without government seeking an agreement to secure testimony
Written by the judges who cited it.
The opinion
ON PETITION FOR REHEARING AND PETITION FOR REHEARING EN BANC
PER CURIAM:
The Petition for Rehearing is denied and the Court having been polled at the request of one of the members of the Court and a majority of the Circuit Judges who are in regular active service not having voted in favor of it, (Rule 35 Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure; Local Fifth Circuit Rule 12) the Petition for Rehearing En Banc is also denied.