Jim Henderson wrote:
> On Tue, 29 Apr 2008 09:27:09 -0700, Darren New wrote:
> 
>> 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.)
> 
> I think because if the lawyers don't follow the rules, what they do could 
> mislead the jury. 

Yeah. But then the lawyers could intentionally break the rules if they 
think they're losing, and get another chance. If the courtroom 
prosecution lawyer can't handle the rules, the suspect should go free, 
not stand trial again.

Maybe I wasn't clear. :-)

> Well, I think that depends on the court - in the drug case I sat on the 
> jury for, the judge and I discussed the case once it was done 

That's different. You brought it up. :-)

-- 
   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