| |
| | IN THE MATTER OF ARTHUR DAVIS, &C., APPELLANT, v. RICHARD A. BROWN, DISTRICT ATTORNEY OF QUEENS COUNTY, ET AL., ... |
 | | Petitioner claims that his motion for a mistrial was specifically delimited a request for a mistrial with prejudice and that the court, by granting a mistrial without prejudice, granted the mistrial without his consent. |
 | | In the absence of petitioner's unequivocal acquiescence to a mistrial without prejudice, the court lacked petitioner's consent to the discharge of the first jury and his retrial is therefore barred by the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy (cf., Weston, supra, at 638). |
 | | The day after petitioner initially moved for a mistrial without qualification, petitioner renewed his mistrial motion, but this time, petitioner's counsel explained, it was being pressed with prejudice because the prosecution had deliberately attempted to cause a mistrial. |
| www.law.cornell.edu /nyctap/I96_0060.htm (1329 words) |
|