2 Analyses of this case by attorneys

  1. Double Jeopardy - Mistrials; Reversals and Dismissals

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    With regard to the opening statement, the trial court did not entertain options short of declaring a mistrial. Here, unlike in Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978), the attorney did not refer to clearly inadmissible evidence. Rather, as in Frazier v. Culp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), the attorney had a good faith belief in the availability of the evidence which he referred to in the opening statement.United States v. Shafer, 987 F.2d 1054 (4th Cir. 1993)During the course of this arson trial, the government introduced evidence that the defendant was in a precarious financial condition.

  2. Opening Statement

    Garland, Samuel & Loeb, P.C.Don SamuelSeptember 1, 2015

    With regard to the opening statement, the trial court did not entertain options short of declaring a mistrial. Here, unlike in Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978), the attorney did not refer to clearly inadmissible evidence. Rather, as in Frazier v. Culp, 394 U.S. 731 (1969), the attorney had a good faith belief in the availability of the evidence which he referred to in the opening statement.United States v. Murrah, 888 F.2d 24 (5th Cir. 1989)During the prosecutor’s opening statement, he alluded to a witness who would testify that the defendant had earlier approached him to torch his business.