United States v. Miguel Berroa

How courts have described this case

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

• affirming a declaration of mistrial despite the court’s failure to consult with the parties at all as required by Rule 26.3, Fed.R.Crim.P.
• “The primary effect of Rule 26.3 reveals itself as prophylactic; Rule 26.3 recalls to trial judges the critical importance of consultation with counsel.”
• “On balance, these events do not indicate that the trial judge declared a mistrial to accommodate his travel plans, but establish that the judge had changed his travel plans to accommodate the trial.”
• “Consistent with the manifest necessity test, the extent to which a Rule 26.3 violation indicates a lack of sound discretion must be considered and resolved based upon the individual and varying circumstances of each case.”
• “The trial judge did not hear from the parties prior to declaring a mistrial. We consider this failure significant, given the mandate of Rule 26.3, and it strongly suggests that the trial judge did not exercise sound discretion.”

Source: CourtListener parenthetical corpus (CC0).