State v. Minnitt

How courts have described this case

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

• holding that a mistrial is not a prerequisite for a double jeopardy claim if a prosecutor “engages in egregious conduct sufficient to require a mistrial but manages to conceal his conduct until after trial”
• holding that a mistrial is not a prerequisite for a double jeopardy claim if a prosecutor \engages in egregious conduct sufficient to require a mistrial but manages to conceal his conduct until after trial\
• “[A] prosecutor has an obligation not only to prosecute with diligence, but to 11 STATE v. ARIAS Opinion of the Court seek justice” and “must refrain from all use of improper methods designed solely to obtain a conviction”
• “[A] prosecutor has an obligation not only to prosecute with diligence, but to 11 STATE v. ARIAS Opinion of the Court seek justice” and “must refrain from all use of improper methods designed solely to obtain a conviction”
• “[W]here a prosecutor ... engages in egregious conduct clearly sufficient to require a mistrial but manages to conceal his conduct until after trial, the same circumstance is presented as in Pool and Jorgenson and the same reasoning applies.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).