244 A.3d 296
N.J. Super. Ct. App. Div.2020Background
- Defendants Adrienne Smith (charged with first-degree murder and related offenses) and her brother Orville Cousins (charged with related offenses) were tried by a jury that was impaneled in January 2020 and whose trial began February 12, 2020.
- Trial was suspended March 17, 2020 after the New Jersey Supreme Court suspended jury trials due to COVID‑19; at suspension the State had presented 29 witnesses and expected 3–4 more.
- After statewide orders began permitting resumed trials with public‑health precautions (June–July 2020), the judge proposed social‑distancing measures, a larger courtroom, plexiglass, PPE, and voir dire on resumption; the State agreed but defendants and defense counsel refused, citing health risks and impairment of advocacy.
- Seven months after suspension, with no realistic prospect of return to pre‑pandemic conditions, the trial judge sua sponte declared a mistrial (Oct. 26, 2020); defendants objected and moved to dismiss on double‑jeopardy grounds.
- The Appellate Division affirmed, holding the pandemic and the case’s unique facts constituted a "sufficient legal reason and manifest necessity" for mistrial and therefore retrial is not barred by double jeopardy.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the judge had "manifest necessity" to declare a mistrial because of COVID‑19 and the seven‑month suspension | Mistrial was required by a sufficient legal reason/manifest necessity given pandemic, delay, and risk to fair trial | No manifest necessity; mistrial over objection violates double jeopardy | Affirmed: pandemic + unique facts created manifest necessity; retrial permitted |
| Whether the judge abused discretion by failing to consider alternatives (e.g., polling jury, read‑back, brief adjournment) | Alternatives were considered but unworkable; polling wouldn't resolve indefinite delay or memory/credibility issues | Judge acted in haste and failed to exhaust less drastic measures | Held no abuse: judge waited seven months, explored options, found no viable less‑drastic alternative |
| Whether the judge lacked authority to declare mistrial given Supreme Court Omnibus Orders suspending trials | Omnibus Orders did not bar judges from suspending proceedings or ruling on motions; judge retained authority | Orders implicitly deprived trial judges of authority to terminate ongoing trials | Held judge had authority; statewide orders did not prohibit such individual rulings |
| Whether defendants waived double‑jeopardy objection by refusing to resume trial | Alternatively, defendants’ refusal could be treated as waiver of objection to termination | Withholding consent for health reasons is not a waiver of double jeopardy rights | Held no waiver; but waiver issue unnecessary because manifest necessity was found |
Key Cases Cited
- State v. Farmer, 48 N.J. 145 (N.J. 1966) (mistrial justified where unexpected circumstance creates urgent need to discontinue to protect fairness)
- State v. Loyal, 164 N.J. 418 (N.J. 2000) (framework for assessing manifest necessity and appellate review of sua sponte mistrial)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (U.S. 1978) (manifest necessity standard; defendant's valued right to have trial completed by chosen tribunal)
- Wade v. Hunter, 336 U.S. 684 (U.S. 1949) (right to have trial completed by a particular tribunal attaches when jury is impaneled and sworn)
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. (9 Wheat.) 579 (U.S. 1824) (origin of "manifest necessity" doctrine permitting discharge of jury in certain urgent circumstances)
- State v. Allah, 170 N.J. 269 (N.J. 2002) (trial judge's discretion on mistrial and improper exercise when viable alternative exists)
- State v. Romeo, 43 N.J. 188 (N.J. 1964) (circumstances, e.g., incapacity or undesigned incidents, that may justify discharge before verdict)