CLOSE

v.

UNITED STATES

Citator

Cited By (11 total)

• United States v. Chase, 372 F.2d 453 (4th Cir. 1967)
  …ts of the jury defendants. The fact of a joint trial alone was a consider [*466] able factor permitting a retrial in the case closest on its facts to Roy’s case. Scott v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 202 F. 2d 354 (D.C. Cir. 1952), cert, den. 344 U.S. 879, 73 S.Ct. 176, 97 L.Ed. 681 (1952). See also, Himmelfarb v. United States, 175 F. 2d 924 (9 Cir. 1949), cert. den. 338 U.S. 860, 70 S.Ct. 103, 94 L.Ed. 527 (1949). From Roy’s standpoint, there was also a reason to grant a mistrial. Roy could have b…
• United States v. Goldstein, 479 F.2d 1061 (2d Cir. 1973)
  …0 Consent need not be express, but may be implied from the totality of circumstances attendant on a declaration of mistrial. United States v. Gori, supra, 282 F. 2d at 46; see Scott v. United States, 91 U.S.App.D.C. 232, 202 F. 2d 354, cert. denied, 344 U.S. 879, 73 S.Ct. 176, 97 L.Ed. 681 (1952); cf. Raslich v. Bannan, 273 F. 2d 420 (6th Cir. 1959) (per curiam). Defendants had moved for a mistrial a scant two hours before one was declared, at the first suggestion of jury deadlock; little, if anything, had…
• United States ex rel. Joseph Russo v. Superior Court OF NEW Jersey, 483 F.2d 7 (3d Cir. 1973)
  …nd that he only objected as an “afterthought.” Appellee’s Appendix, pg. 21. While the better practice may be to object as soon as counsel learns that a mistrial is to be granted, see Scott v. United States, 202 F. 2d 354 (D.C.Cir.1952), cert. denied 344 U.S. 879, 73 S.Ct. 176, 97 L.Ed. 681 (1952), appellant’s counsel was in a difficult situation. He had no advance warning or notice that a mistrial was to be declared; as we mentioned, even the prosecutor admitted that he was surprised by the trial judge’s ac…