United States v. Fisher
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23405
| 5th Cir. | 2010Background
- Fisher and co-defendants were indicted on narcotics charges; trial scheduled for Sep 28, 2009; a two-day continuance was granted to review mislabeled discovery; two government witnesses (essential chemists) could not testify as scheduled due to scheduling conflicts; co-defendant Alexander exhibited bizarre behavior leading to a competency evaluation and potential severance; the court granted a seven-month continuance and sua sponte declared a mistrial due to Alexander's condition and related issues; Fisher moved to dismiss on double-jeopardy grounds; the district court denied the motion and the Fifth Circuit issued a writ of mandamus finding Fisher had colorable claims of non-consent and lack of manifest necessity; on review, the court held there was no implied consent and the mistrial was not manifestly necessary; the indictment was dismissed on double-jeopardy grounds.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Fisher deemed to have impliedly consented to the mistrial? | Fisher did object; the court had opportunity to address concerns. | Fisher did not consent; timely objections required. | No implied consent; Fisher preserved challenge. |
| Was the mistrial justified by manifest necessity given the unavailability of essential government witnesses? | Unavailability was central but not justified; scheduling conflicts alone insufficient. | Unavailability of key witnesses created necessity. | Not manifestly necessary; mistrial invalid. |
| Did the district court properly consider reasonable alternatives to a mistrial? | Court failed to explore alternatives to mitigate unavailability. | Court had limited options due to scheduling conflicts. | Court failed to consider reasonable alternatives; strict scrutiny applicable. |
| Does the Double Jeopardy Clause bar reprosecution? | Since no manifest necessity and no consent, reprosecution barred. | Consent and necessity permitted reprosecution. | Reversed denial of motion to dismiss; indictment dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978) (establishes manifest-necessity standard and strict scrutiny for mistrials when critical evidence unavailable)
- United States v. Jorn, 400 U.S. 470 (1971) (requires careful factual inquiry before granting/denying mistrial)
- Downum v. United States, 372 U.S. 734 (1963) (mistrial improper when key witness absent and trial proceeds)
- McNeal v. Hollowell, 481 F.2d 1145 (5th Cir. 1973) (requires painstaking examination of facts before mistrial; considers alternatives)
- Rivera v. United States, 384 F.3d 49 (3d Cir. 2004) (scheduling considerations cannot outweigh defendant’s right to be tried once; careful consideration of alternatives)