State v. Marvel
1509008379
| Del. Super. Ct. | Apr 10, 2017Background
- Defendant Michele Marvel was charged with unlawful access to Prescription Monitoring Program info and making a false statement; she waived jury trial and proceeded to a bench trial.
- At a pretrial office conference, the State mentioned a possible past court employment connection between Marvel’s mother and the trial judge, but did not disclose the mother’s name; the judge and defense counsel said they had no recollection of any conflict.
- After one full day of bench trial (five State witnesses), the judge learned the identity of Marvel’s mother and realized she was the daughter of a longtime personal friend; the judge concluded he could not proceed impartially.
- The judge declared a mistrial sua sponte; defense counsel did not formally object on the record and indicated only that he understood the judge’s position and noted hardship of a mistrial.
- Marvel moved to dismiss on double jeopardy grounds, arguing the mistrial was not one of "manifest necessity," particularly because the judge had been alerted to a possible connection before jeopardy attached and therefore could have recused earlier.
- The court denied the motion: it found (on the facts) manifest necessity to protect against judicial impropriety, no bad faith by the State or judge, and therefore retrial was not barred.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether mistrial allowed retrial under Double Jeopardy | State: retrial permitted because mistrial was declared out of manifest necessity once judge learned of personal relationship | Marvel: mistrial not manifest necessity; judge had prior notice of a possible connection and could have recused before jeopardy attached | Court: Held mistrial was out of manifest necessity on these facts; retrial allowed |
| Whether prior knowledge of potential conflict before jeopardy precludes manifest necessity | State: judge did not have the social-relationship info before trial start; prior pretrial mention was non-identifying and insufficient | Marvel: prior notice of possible conflict means lack of surprise, so mistrial not necessary; negligence to address earlier negates manifest necessity | Court: Declined to adopt a bright-line rule; evaluated facts case-by-case and found judge lacked the identifying information until after jeopardy attached |
| Whether defendant’s acquiescence or lack of objection bars retrial | State: defense effectively consented by failing to object and agreeing to retrial discussions | Marvel: defense counsel did voice concern about hardship and thus objected | Court: Did not decide whether counsel formally objected; ruled manifest necessity independently justified retrial |
| Whether governmental bad faith or provocation bars retrial | Marvel: implied prosecutorial negligence/provocation could bar retrial | State: no bad faith; investigator disclosed to State only and did not conceal information; judge’s later realization was genuine | Court: Found no evidence of bad faith or intent to provoke; retrial not barred on this ground |
Key Cases Cited
- United States v. Perez, 22 U.S. 579 (1824) (establishes "manifest necessity" standard for mistrials)
- United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (1971) (courts must consider alternatives before declaring mistrial)
- Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 (1963) (retrial barred where prosecutor proceeded despite available alternatives)
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (defendant’s valued right to have trial completed by particular tribunal; high degree of necessity required to allow retrial)
- United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82 (1978) (trial judge’s characterization of facts not binding on reviewing court)
- Bailey v. State, 521 A.2d 1069 (Del. 1987) (Delaware adopts Perez; manifest necessity inquiry governs mistrials without defendant’s motion)
- United States v. Sartori, 730 F.2d 973 (4th Cir. 1984) (case-specific inquiry; prior knowledge does not create automatic bar to retrial)
- State v. Buell, 605 A.2d 539 (Conn. 1992) (held prior judicial knowledge may preclude finding of manifest necessity)
- Mansfield v. State, 29 A.3d 569 (Md. 2011) (retrial barred where judge declared mistrial based on information known before jeopardy attached)