2006-12-07 00:48:28 · 5 answers · asked by DaHBIC 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Law & Ethics
They get to go home.
Coach
2006-12-07 00:55:28 · answer #1 · answered by Thanks for the Yahoo Jacket 7 · 0⤊ 2⤋
The short answer: If the judge offers one party a mistrial and that party declines, one of two things will happen: 1) The judge will determine that a mistrial is necessary to ensure justice and will declare a mistrial anyway. (This is called 'manifest necessity'.) 2) The judge will determine that a mistrial is not necessary and the trial will continue. It sounds like '2' happened. If he declined the mistrial, assuming he's not an idiot, that means he felt he was better off letting the trial continue than stopping it (and likely having to start the trial over from scratch). So I'm not sure why you should be worried. He may have declined the mistrial because he particularly liked this jury, thought the trial was going well for him, and/or feared that the prosecutor would be able to make a stronger case next time due to information revealed during the course of this trial.
2016-03-13 04:19:51 · answer #2 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
It depends which door the defendant walked into the courtroom. Generallly, it'll be the same door they walk out of--be it the one he/she opened his/her-self or the one the bailiff opened for him/her.
Mistrial is NOT aquittal--in which case the defendant DOES get to go home.
2006-12-07 00:55:37 · answer #3 · answered by S D Modiano 5 · 1⤊ 0⤋
The judge decides. In a major murder case, if the person was already remanded, they'll probably stay in jail. In most white-collar crimes, the defendant is allowed out on bail or ROR.
2006-12-07 02:03:20 · answer #4 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋
motions are entertained by the judge, who decides if the defend. can be released on bond or returned to jail to await a new trial.
2006-12-07 00:51:02 · answer #5 · answered by David B 6 · 0⤊ 0⤋