Hightower v. State, 315 Ga. 399

Trial of Michelle Hightower for malice murder began March 9, 2020; jury was empaneled and sworn and evidence was presented over several days.
On March 13, 2020 Chief Judge Brasher issued a Fulton County order declaring a 30‑day judicial emergency suspending juror service because of COVID‑19; the trial court took judicial notice and declared a mistrial over Hightower’s objection.
The next day the Georgia Supreme Court issued a statewide order permitting ongoing criminal trials to continue unless good cause existed to suspend them, but that statewide order post‑dated the mistrial.
Hightower filed a plea in bar arguing double jeopardy barred retrial because the mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity and the court failed to consider less drastic alternatives.
After an evidentiary hearing the trial court denied the plea, finding a high degree of necessity given the judicial emergency and health concerns (including a juror and a witness with illness), and concluded the court had exercised its discretion.
The Georgia Supreme Court affirmed, holding the trial court did not abuse its broad discretion: manifest necessity existed and the court reasonably rejected alternatives (weekend completion would have violated the Fulton County order; indefinite continuance was infeasible).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether retrial is barred by double jeopardy because a mistrial was declared without manifest necessity	Hightower: mistrial was unnecessary, court relied only on community safety concerns unrelated to her trial, and failed to exercise/record discretion	State/Trial Ct: judicial emergency and actual health concerns created a high degree of necessity; court solicited and considered alternatives	Held: No double jeopardy bar; mistrial supported by manifest necessity and within trial court’s discretion
Whether the trial court failed to consider less drastic alternatives before declaring mistrial	Hightower: court did not adequately explore or preserve the jury; alternatives existed (finish over weekend or continue with same jury later)	State/Trial Ct: court solicited argument; weekend completion would have violated the Fulton County Order; continuance was indefinite and impracticable	Held: Court reasonably rejected alternatives; its exercise of discretion was not an abuse
Whether a subsequently issued statewide order (allowing trials in progress to continue) renders the mistrial improper	Hightower: later statewide order shows mistrial was premature	State/Trial Ct: decision judged from perspective at time; statewide order had not been issued when mistrial declared	Held: Subsequent statewide order does not undo the trial court’s timely exercise of discretion at the moment it declared mistrial

U.S. v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600 (recognizing retrial after a defendant‑objected mistrial depends on manifest necessity)
Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (manifest necessity standard and balancing defendant’s and public interests)
United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (health and logistics of trial participants are relevant to mistrial decisions)
Carman v. State, 304 Ga. 21 (trial judge’s broad discretion on mistrial; double jeopardy analysis follows federal precedent)
Blake v. State, 304 Ga. 747 (trial court must actually exercise discretion; great deference to mistrial decisions)
Laguerre v. State, 301 Ga. 122 (manifest necessity requires a high degree of necessity; consideration of surrounding circumstances)
Harvey v. State, 296 Ga. 823 (courts should consider less drastic alternatives but reasonable disagreement does not equal abuse of discretion)