A defendant’s rights against double jeopardy were not violated by the scheduling of a second trial after a mistrial, a Brooklyn appeals court has ruled. "The mere declaration of a mistrial does not terminate a criminal trial and thereby divest the trial court of the authority to rescind the declaration," the Appellate Division, Second Department, wrote on May 22 in Gorman v. Rice, 8279/10. The panel unanimously reversed a lower court’s order barring retrial for a woman facing drunken-driving charges.
In 2009, Nassau County District Court Judge Robert Spergel (See Profile) declared a mistrial in Catherine Gorman’s case after her attorney, Harry H. Kutner Jr. of Mineola, questioned the judge’s "pro-prosecution bias." After a short recess, Spergel rescinded his action but asked the defense if it wanted him to stay on the case and the defense said it would opt for a mistrial, which Spergel granted. With the case then assigned to another judge, Gorman unsuccessfully moved for dismissal on double jeopardy grounds. She then filed an Article 78 petition to block retrial.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law are third party online distributors of the broad collection of current and archived versions of ALM's legal news publications. LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law customers are able to access and use ALM's content, including content from the National Law Journal, The American Lawyer, Legaltech News, The New York Law Journal, and Corporate Counsel, as well as other sources of legal information.
For questions call 1-877-256-2472 or contact us at [email protected]
