TYRONE SALTER, PETITIONER,
v.
THE STATE OF FLORIDA, RESPONDENT
AI-generated. These summaries, headnotes, and key points are machine-generated and may contain errors or omissions. Always verify against the full opinion text below. Not legal advice.
Tyrone Salter petitioned for a writ of prohibition to prevent his retrial after the trial court declared a mistrial based on manifest necessity when a key defense witness recanted her testimony during jury deliberations and revealed the defendant had solicited her to commit perjury. The appellate court denied the petition, holding that manifest necessity justified the mistrial because the defendant's own misconduct frustrated the trial process.
The trial court properly declared a mistrial based on manifest necessity, and the defendant has no constitutional right to proceed with a trial tainted by his own perjurious solicitation of witnesses. Double Jeopardy does not bar retrial when the defendant's own misconduct necessitates the mistrial.
[1] A mistrial may be declared based on manifest necessity when a principal defense witness recants testimony during jury deliberations and admits to lying for the defendant,…
[2] The recantation of a key defense witness during jury deliberations, revealing that the witness was asked to lie by the defendant and threatened by the defendant's associa…
Previewing 2 of 5 headnotes on this case. FLexlaw’s editorially structured points of law — every proposition, pinpointed — are reserved for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence“The appellant had no constitutional right, overriding the public interest, to have his case determined by a tribunal whose processes he had himself thus frustrated and abused.”
Establishes the core principle that defendants cannot escape retrial through their own misconduct that necessitates a mistrial.
Previewing 1 of 2 key quotes on this case — the court’s exact language, pinpointed for members.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligenceSalter was prosecuted for possession of a firearm by a violent career criminal. During jury deliberations, the principal defense witness recanted her …
The full statement of facts, procedural history, and disposition for this case are member content.
Join FLexlaw to unlock all legal intelligence© FLexlaw, Inc. — AI-generated enrichments are proprietary. All rights reserved.
Explore caselaw by topic → Browse Recantation Of Testimony cases and more on FLexlaw
COPE, J.
Tyrone Salter petitions for a writ of prohibition, seeking to prevent his retrial after the court declared a mistrial on the ground of manifest necessity. We entirely agree with Judge Leslie Rothenberg’s ruling and deny the petition.
The State prosecuted defendant-petitioner Salter on the charge of possession of a firearm by violent career criminal. While the jury was deliberating, the principal defense witness recanted her testimony. She testified that the defendant had asked her to lie for him and had promised her money. She said that the defendant’s brother also asked her to lie for the defendant, and defendant’s friends threatened her with harm if she did not do so.
While the trial court was considering what to do, the jury sent out a note that it had reached a verdict. The trial court directed that the verdict be sealed,* and granted a mistrial on the basis of manifest necessity. The State intends to retry defendant.
The defendant moved to dismiss the charge on Double Jeopardy grounds. The trial court denied the motion, and defendant has filed this petition for writ of prohibition.
We deny the petition on authority of a similar case, McKissick v. United States, 398 F. 2d 342 (5th Cir.1968). In that case it came to light during the trial that the defendant had given perjured testimony. The Fifth Circuit held that there was a manifest necessity for a mistrial. “The appellant had no constitutional right, overriding the public interest, to have his case determined by a tribunal whose processes he had himself thus frustrated and abused.” Id. at 344 (internal quotation marks and citation omitted); see also Walsh v. State, 418 So. 2d 1000, 1002-03 (Fla.1982) (mistrial upheld on the basis of manifest necessity where defendant violated an order in limine and testified that he had passed a lie detector test). See generally Quinones v. State, 766 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000); Clark v. State, 756 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000); Barnett v. State, 382 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980). The defendant relies on State ex rel. Wilson v. Lewis, 55 So. 2d 118 (Fla.1951), and State ex rel. Alcala v. Grayson, 156 Fla. 435, 23 So. 2d 484 (1945), but those cases are not on point. In both of those cases the trial court granted a mistrial on the basis of a bare suspicion by the court that there had been perjury. Those cases do not rise to the level involved in the present case.
Petition denied.
*
The jury was polled by asking if each juror acceded to the written verdict, without stating what the verdict was.
Cases With Similar Vibessemantic neighbors from the corpus
Citator
Authorities Cited
- State ex rel. Armando Alcala v. HON. L. A. Grayson, 156 Fla. 435 (Fla. 1945)
- Walsh v. State, 418 So. 2d 1000 (Fla. 1982)
- QUIÑONES v. State, 766 So. 2d 1165 (Fla. 3d DCA 2000)
- Clark v. State, 756 So. 2d 244 (Fla. 5th DCA 2000)
- Barnett v. State, 382 So. 2d 412 (Fla. 1st DCA 1980)
- McKISSICK v. United States, 398 F.2d 342 (5th Cir. 1968)