St. Clair v. Castlen, 2012 Ky. LEXIS 178

St. Clair seeks a writ of prohibition to stop a retrial on capital kidnapping, attempted murder, arson, and receiving stolen property after a mistrial declared for prosecutorial references to alleged prior bad acts.
Mistrial occurred in June 2009 when the court found the Commonwealth violated a pretrial order in opening statements.
St. Clair argues double jeopardy bars retry and that writ is appropriate because the trial court acted erroneously within jurisdiction.
The trial court found manifest necessity for the mistrial but did not find prosecutorial misconduct.
The questioned remedy is whether a writ is available or whether an appeal provides adequate relief; the court ultimately denies the writ.
The court holds that an adequate remedy by appeal exists and declines to address the double-jeopardy merits.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether a writ of prohibition is available to halt retrial after mistrial.	St. Clair argues no adequate remedy by appeal.	Commonwealth contends writ is improper if remedy exists by appeal.	Writ not available; adequate remedy by appeal exists.
Whether addressing double jeopardy was required or appropriate in the writ context.	St. Clair seeks to change double-jeopardy analysis via writ.	Court may address merits in writ or deny for lack of remedy by appeal.	Court declined to reach merits; adequate remedy by appeal forecloses writ.

Bender v. Eaton, 343 S.W.2d 799 (Ky.1961) (premise that petitioner must show no adequate remedy by appeal)
Hoskins v. Maricle, 150 S.W.3d 1 (Ky.2004) (prerequisites for a writ; remedy must be inadequate)
St. Clair v. Roark, 10 S.W.3d 482 (Ky.1999) (irreducible to remedy by appeal where appropriate)