Frank Vaughn v. J. Woodford

MEMORANDUM

Frank Vaughn appeals the district court’s denial of his petition for habeas corpus. Vaughn argues that there was no manifest necessity for a mistrial in his first trial because he was willing to waive his attorney’s asserted conflict of interest.

Under AEDPA, the question before us is “not whether the trial judge should have declared a mistrial. It is not even whether it was an abuse of discretion for her to have done so — the applicable standard on direct review.” Renico v. Lett, 559 U.S. 766 , 130 S.Ct. 1855, 1862 , 176 L.Ed.2d 678 (2010). Rather, the question is whether the California Court of Appeal’s determination that the trial court did not abuse its discretion was “based on an unreasonable determination of the facts” or was “contrary to, or involved an unreasonable application of, clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 2254 (d); Renico, 130 S.Ct. at 1862 . Under Supreme Court precedent, in cases where a mistrial is ordered over a defendant’s objection, retrial is permissible only if there is “manifest necessity” for the mistrial. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 505 , 98 S.Ct. 824 , 54 L.Ed.2d…