## Facts

- Washington was convicted of murder in Arizona state court.
- The trial court granted a new trial after finding the prosecution failed to disclose exculpatory evidence.
- At the second trial, defense counsel’s opening statement accused the prosecution of having “withheld evidence” in the first trial.
- The prosecutor moved for a mistrial, arguing the comment was improper and would prejudice the jury.
- After extended argument, the trial judge granted a mistrial over Washington’s objection.
- The judge did not expressly state “manifest necessity” or make detailed findings explaining why alternatives, such as curative instructions, were inadequate.

## Issues

1. Whether the record showed a sufficiently high degree of necessity to justify a mistrial over the defendant’s objection without barring retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Whether retrial is barred when the trial judge does not explicitly find “manifest necessity” or fully articulate reasons for declaring a mistrial on the record.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Ninth Circuit and held retrial was not barred by the Double Jeopardy Clause.
- The Court held substantial deference is owed to a trial judge’s assessment that improper remarks risk juror bias.
- The Court concluded the record supported that the judge acted deliberately and considered the defendant’s interest in completing the trial before the original jury.
- The Court held explicit “manifest necessity” phrasing and exhaustive on-the-record findings are not constitutionally required if the record shows sound discretion.

## Legal Principles

- A defendant has a protected interest in completing trial before a particular tribunal, but that interest may yield when a mistrial is justified by “manifest necessity” or the ends of public justice.
- When a mistrial is based on possible juror bias from improper argument, appellate and collateral review should give the trial judge’s evaluation the highest degree of respect.
- The Double Jeopardy Clause permits retrial after a mistrial over the defendant’s objection when the record supports a high degree of necessity and a non-arbitrary exercise of discretion.
- A mistrial ruling is not invalid solely because the judge did not recite “manifest necessity” or expressly reject every alternative on the record.

## Conclusion

The Court held that retrial following a mistrial declared over the defendant’s objection is permitted when the record shows the trial judge exercised sound discretion and a high degree of necessity supported ending the trial, even without an explicit “manifest necessity” finding.


Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497 (1978)