Legal Opinion

Johnson v. United States

District of Columbia Court of Appeals

Decided February 5, 1993No. 92-CO-470PublishedCited by 10 opinions

1Opinion of the Court

STEADMAN, Associate Judge:

On the second day of jury deliberations in appellant’s first trial on a ten-count indictment, the trial court declared a mistrial, over the defendant’s objection, on grounds of “manifest necessity.” Before us is an expedited interlocutory appeal from a trial court ruling, prior to commencement of a second trial, denying appellant’s motion to dismiss the charges on double jeopardy grounds. 1 We hold that under the circumstances of this case, the trial court in the first trial did not abuse its discretion in declaring a mistrial for manifest necessity. Accordingly, we…

2Cases cited19 opinions

  1. Abney v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1977
  2. Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
  3. United States v. PerezSupreme Court of the United States · 1824
  4. Richardson v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  5. Hansford P. Miller v. Jackson AviromCourt of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit · 1967

14 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

3Cited by10 opinions

  1. Salmon v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 1997
  2. Butler v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2005
  3. Crawford v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007
  4. Davidson v. United StatesDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2012
  5. Nero v. District of ColumbiaDistrict of Columbia Court of Appeals · 2007

5 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API