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
COLEMAN, Circuit Judge
(dissenting) :
For the reasons enumerated in the dissent to the original panel opinion, I respectfully dissent to the denial of rehearing en banc.