Edwin Bryan Ascencio v. State of Florida

How courts have described this case

Verbatim parenthetical descriptions written by other courts when citing this decision. Ranked by citation-network relevance.

• holding that it was inconsistent with sound discretion to demand an immediate decision from prosecutor about whether to seek mistrial
• “We further find it significant that the trial court judge failed to consider less drastic alternatives, but instead immediately decided that a mistrial was appropriate.”
• “We further find it significant that the trial court judge failed to consider less drastic alternatives, but instead immediately decided that a mistrial was appropriate.”
• trial court’s exercise of discretion stands on firmer ground when record reflects analytic process leading to decision to declare mistrial
• in concluding that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred reprosecution, finding it “significant that the trial court judge failed to consider less drastic alternatives, but instead immediately decided that a mistrial was appropriate”
• in concluding that the Double Jeopardy Clause barred reprosecution, finding it “significant that the trial court judge failed to consider less drastic alter- natives, but instead immediately decided that a mistrial was appropriate”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).