Arizona v. Washington

434 U.S. 497 (1978)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Washington (D) was found guilty of murdering a hotel night clerk. A new trial was ordered because the prosecutor had withheld exculpatory evidence from the defense. During the voir dire examination of prospective jurors in the second trial, the prosecutor made reference to the fact that some of the witnesses whose testimony the jurors would hear had testified in proceedings four years earlier. Defense counsel told the prospective jurors 'that there was evidence hidden from D at the last trial.' In his opening statement, he made this point forcefully. After opening statements were completed, P moved for a mistrial. It was denied. Two witnesses then testified. The following morning P renewed his mistrial motion. P argued the prejudice to the jury could not be repaired by any cautionary instructions, and that a mistrial was a 'manifest necessity.' The trial judge granted the motion. The trial judge did not expressly find that there was 'manifest necessity' for a mistrial; nor did he expressly state that he had considered alternative solutions and concluded that none would be adequate. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to review the mistrial ruling. D filed a petition for writ of habeas corpus alleging that another trial would violate the Double Jeopardy Clause. The Federal District Judge noted that the Arizona trial judge had not canvassed on the record the possibility of alternatives to a mistrial and expressed the view that before granting a mistrial motion the judge was required 'to find that manifest necessity exists for the granting of it.' Because the record contained no such finding, and because the federal judge was not prepared to make such a finding himself, he granted the writ. The Ninth Circuit also characterized the opening statement as improper but affirmed because, absent a finding of manifest necessity or an explicit consideration of alternatives, the court was unwilling to infer that the jury was prevented from arriving at a fair and impartial verdict. The Supreme Court granted certiorari.