Jim Henderson wrote:
> The judge *could* declare a mistrial, but maybe not after the case 
> goes to the jury. 

I believe that's correct. Personally, I don't understand why they're 
allowed to call a mistrial in the *middle* of a trial for conduct of the 
prosecutors, myself, but I'm not a lawyer.  (Mistrial because the entire 
jury got hit by a bus or something, sure.)

> Come to think of it, though, I think you're right - 
> double jeopardy might enter if he did that.

I believe that's correct, yes. Indeed, the judge isn't even allowed to 
ask the jury *why* they decided the way they did. There was an old case 
where the judge threatened to lock up the jury until they decided the 
suspect was guilty, from which a lot of the current system flows.

-- 
   Darren New / San Diego, CA, USA (PST)
     "That's pretty. Where's that?"
          "It's the Age of Channelwood."
     "We should go there on vacation some time."

Post a reply to this message