Carman v. State, 304 Ga. 21

Defendant Demario Carman was tried for murder and related charges; jury sworn and trial began November 17, 2014 in Fulton County, Georgia.
On November 19, during the State’s case, co-counsel Kimberly Staten-Hayes became emotionally incapacitated after learning her niece had attempted suicide; the court observed her distress.
Lead counsel Christian Lamar and newly-joined counsel Gabrielle Pittman proposed a 13-day continuance; the State joined but asked Carman to commit to proceed with remaining counsel if Staten-Hayes could not return.
The trial court: after a recess, concluded Staten-Hayes could not competently continue and that Pittman (on the case only two weeks) was unprepared; the court declared a mistrial over defense and State objections.
Carman filed a plea in bar arguing double jeopardy barred retrial and also argued denial of his right to counsel of choice; the trial court denied the plea and motion to reconsider.
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial and denying the double jeopardy bar; the choice-of-counsel claim was not preserved for appeal and, in any event, was not shown to require reversal.

Issue	Carman's Argument	State's Argument	Held
Whether double jeopardy bars retrial after court-declared mistrial for counsel incapacity	Mistrial deprived him of his right to have the original jury resolve guilt; retrial would violate double jeopardy	Trial court had "manifest necessity" to declare mistrial to protect defendant’s right to effective representation and the integrity of proceedings	Court affirmed: mistrial justified under Perez/Arizona v. Washington line; retrial permitted
Whether court improperly deprived Carman of his counsel of choice by ending trial instead of continuing	Court forced abandonment of representation by longstanding counsel and deprived Carman’s chosen team	Court acted to protect fairness and justice given co-counsel’s incapacity and new counsel’s unpreparedness	Not preserved for appeal; court did not abuse discretion in ending trial

United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824) (trial courts may discharge a jury for "manifest necessity")
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) ("manifest necessity" requires a high degree of necessity; defer to trial judge discretion)
Crist v. Bretz, 437 U.S. 28 (1978) (jeopardy attaches when jury is empaneled and sworn)
Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 (2010) (granting mistrial is within broad discretion of trial judge; appellate scrutiny if judge acts for reasons unrelated to trial)
United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (1971) (limitations on retrial where mistrial improperly forecloses defendant’s chance at acquittal)
Illinois v. Somerville, 410 U.S. 458 (1973) (mistrial permissible where important countervailing interest exists)
Gori v. United States, 367 U.S. 364 (1961) (deference to trial judge when mistrial declared for compelling reasons)
Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 (1963) (consequences where mistrial declared due to prosecution unpreparedness)
Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (1949) (retrial allowed where termination necessary to serve ends of justice)