Legal Opinion
Friedmann v. State
Court of Appeals of Alaska
Decided December 21, 2007No. A-9750PublishedCited by 3 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
MANNHEIMER, Judge.
Because of a criminal defendant's constitutional right not to be placed in jeopardy a second time for the same offense, our law forbids a trial judge from discharging a jury in the middle of an uncompleted eriminal trial unless (1) the defendant consents to this action, or (2) there is a manifest necessity for this action. 1
Nevertheless, Alaska Criminal Rule 27(d)(8) suggests that the mid-trial dismissal of a jury might be authorized on a separate ground. Criminal Rule 27(d)(8) states that if one or more jurors are unable to perform their duties or are disqualified…
2Cases cited22 opinions
- United States v. JornSupreme Court of the United States · 1971
- Arizona v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
- Wade v. HunterSupreme Court of the United States · 1949
- United States v. DinitzSupreme Court of the United States · 1976
- Crist v. BretzSupreme Court of the United States · 1978
17 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by3 opinions
- State v. BarronMontana Supreme Court · 2008
- Beattie v. StateCourt of Appeals of Alaska · 2011
- State v. BarronMontana Supreme Court · 2008