Castro

MEMORANDUM *

The California Court of Appeal decision that there was manifest necessity to declare a mistrial was not contrary to, nor an unreasonable application of, “clearly established Federal law, as determined by the Supreme Court of the United States.” 1 Castro’s Fifth Amendment right to be free from being twice placed in jeopardy for the same offense was not violated. Although the jury had already been impaneled and the trial judge declared the mistrial over the defendant’s objection, the mistrial was permissible because it was justified by “manifest necessity.” 2 Manifest necessity is not a “standard that can be applied mechanically or without attention to the particular problem confronting the trial *378 judge.” 3 The trial judge must “exercise[ ] ‘sound discretion’ in declaring a mistrial.”

In Castro’s case, the trial judge did exercise sound discretion in concluding that there was manifest necessity. Because Castro’s first lawyer had a legitimate conflict of interest, the trial judge appointed replacement counsel. He then granted a 120-day continuance, based on extensive questioning regarding replacement counsel’s ability to try the case, to ensure that Castro would…