''United States v. Jorn'', 400 U.S. 470 (1971), was a United States Supreme Court decision clarifying when a criminal defendant may be retried after a mistrial. In this case, where a trial judge abruptly declared a mistrial to prevent the prosecution's witness from incriminating himself, a second trial was barred by the

Double Jeopardy Clause The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution provides: ''" r shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb..."'' The four essential protections included a ...

. Jorn was charged with numerous counts of assisting in the preparation of fraudulent income tax returns. He was tried in the United States District Court for the District of Utah. Among the government's witnesses were five taxpayers whom Jorn had allegedly assisted in preparing fraudulent returns. As the first of these witnesses was called, the trial judge became concerned the witness was about to incriminate himself, and refused to allow the witness to testify until the same had consulted an attorney. Upon learning that all five witnesses were in the same situation, the judge discharged the jury and aborted the trial. The case was then set for retrial before a different jury, but Jorn argued that retrial was forbidden by double jeopardy. The question of when a retrial is permitted after a mistrial is flexible and depends on the circumstances of the case. Here, the trial judge had acted '' sua sponte'', abruptly discharging the jury without input from either the prosecution or defense. The Court used the framework of ''

United States v. Perez ''United States v. Josef Perez'', 22 U.S. (9 Wheat) 579 (1824), is a case of the Supreme Court of the United States. The decision held that when a criminal trial results in a hung jury, the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not ...

'' to evaluate this action, asking whether there was "manifest necessity" to declare the mistrial. Here, the Court concluded, "the trial judge here abused his discretion in discharging the jury," suggesting instead the possibility of a

continuance In American procedural law, a continuance is the postponement of a hearing, trial, or other scheduled court proceeding at the request of either or both parties in the dispute, or by the judge ''sua sponte''. In response to delays in bringing cases ...

. Justice

Harlan Harlan is a given name and a surname which may refer to: Surname *Bob Harlan (born 1936 Robert E. Harlan), American football executive *Bruce Harlan (1926–1959), American Olympic diver *Byron B. Harlan (1886–1949), American politician *Byron G ...

pointed out the potential injustice of subjecting the defendant to a second trial, writing, "Reprosecution after a mistrial has unnecessarily been declared ... subjects the defendant to ... personal strain and insecurity." In conclusion, since there was not "manifest necessity" for the trial judge to declare the mistrial, Jorn could not be reprosecuted.

References

External links

* {{Fifth Amendment crimpro, jeopardy United States Double Jeopardy Clause case law United States Supreme Court cases United States Supreme Court cases of the Burger Court 1971 in United States case law

See also

References

External links