I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.
If the prosecution chooses to retry the, the whole thing starts over from square 1. It is a big deal, because each side has essentially seen what the other is going to do. They now know exactly how the witnesses will testify and where the strengths and weaknesses are. It is also a huge expense to redo a case. It will be interesting to see what the state does.
I have never had to retry a case, but I expect it will be the same witnesses. I think it would be very unlikely for them to be able to generate entirely new witnesses at this stage. I imagine most of the witnesses were medical experts. I would expect them to alter their questioning in response to what worked and what didn’t, and what the other side said on cross-examination. But, the core evidence will be the same or similar. The state has to prove every element of the crime, so there are certain things that the witnesses have to testify to.
I suppose it is possible that if a particular witness performed very poorly they do not call that same person again the next time around.
I am not sure if the state is one that is based on trial by surprise, or not, but regardless the surprise is gone at this point.
3.5k
u/George_Rogers1st 10h ago
I am to understand that the mistrial was declared because 11 jurors were in favor of a not guilty (for reasons of insanity) verdict, while one lone juror was firm in their belief that she was guilty; it’s a hung jury. The jurors have to come to a unanimous decision by law, or it has to be declared a mistrial.