90 F. Supp. 3d 883
D. Alaska2015Background
- Trial commenced November 3, 2014 with 12 jurors and 2 alternates; one juror excused on Nov 6, 2014 leaving one alternate.
- Between Nov 3–Nov 17 seven trial days were held; on Nov 18 counsel hospitalized and unable to continue.
- Court tentatively continued trial to Feb 10, 2015 due to defense counsel's medical status; appointment of Federal Public Defender considered.
- By Nov 25 hearing, counsel’s status remained uncertain and trial continuances were granted; trial set to resume after ~12 weeks.
- Court concluded the substantial delay would impair jurors' recall of evidence and could not adequately be remedied by refresher or transcript-based approaches; mistrial granted.
- Judgment: The Government’s Motion for Mistrial at Docket 178 granted; trial date vacated; current jury discharged; new trial setting conference scheduled for Feb 19, 2015.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether manifest necessity warrants a mistrial | Government argues delay and memory issues make a fair trial impossible | Brandner argues alternatives suffice or continuance viable | Yes; manifest necessity supports mistrial and dismissal of current jury |
| Whether alternatives to mistrial were feasible | Government contends summons or refreshers insufficient | Brandner argues continuing or partial re-presentations possible | No viable alternatives adequately preserve a fair trial |
| Whether the Government acted with tactical advantage in seeking a mistrial | Government acted in genuine concern for fairness, not advantage | Brandner contends potential government strategic motivation | Court finds no tactical advantage; motion grounded in fairness due to delay |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 F.2d 497 (U.S. 1978) (approaches to evaluating prejudice and remembrances in juror recall)
- Chapman v. United States, 524 F.3d 1073 (9th Cir. 2008) (deference to a judge's assessment of memory and attention span in mid-trial delays)
- Hernandez v. United States, 27 F.3d 1403 (9th Cir. 1994) (trust in juror recall vs. transcript use during deliberations)
- Bonas v. United States, 344 F.3d 945 (9th Cir. 2003) (background on evaluating delays and retrial considerations)
- Papia v. United States, 560 F.2d 827 (7th Cir. 1977) (discussion of recall and credibility considerations in retrial)
- Grintjes v. United States, 237 F.3d 876 (7th Cir. 2001) (commentary on alternatives to mistrial and impact of delay)