Divans v. California, A-91
Citation | 98 S.Ct. 1,434 U.S. 1303,54 L.Ed.2d 14 |
Decision Date | 28 July 1977 |
Docket Number | No. A-91,A-91 |
Parties | Kenneth Eugene DIVANS, v. State of CALIFORNIA |
Court | United States Supreme Court |
Applicant has requested that I stay the commencement of his second trial in the Superior Court of Santa Clara County, Cal., pending the filing and disposition of a petition for certiorari here. His first trial aborted as a result of the trial judge's declaration of a mistrial upon applicant's motion. I have determined the application should be denied.
Any order granting a mistrial at the behest of a defendant in a criminal case is typically based upon error or misconduct on the part of other counsel or the court. In order to elevate such a typical order into one which could form the basis of a claim of double jeopardy, it must be shown not only that there was error, which is the common predicate to all such orders, but that such error was committed by the prosecution or by the court for the purpose of forcing the defendant to move for a mistrial.
United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. 600, 611, 96 S.Ct. 1075, 1081, 47 L.Ed.2d 267 (1976).
The finding of the Superior Court that the prosecutorial error which resulted in the original mistrial in this case was of the former and not the latter kind convinces me that this Court would not grant certiorari to review the applicant's double jeopardy claim.
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Mitchell v. State, 57746
... ... In Carter, 402 So.2d at 821, this Court, citing Divans v. California, 434 U.S. 1303, 98 S.Ct. 1, 54 L.Ed.2d 14 (1977), stated: ... In order to elevate ... ...
-
The City of Massillon v. Mark A. Kohler
... ... The ... Supreme Court of California, through which the harmless error ... rule became famous (Chapman v. California, 386 U.S ... Ed 2d 43, 98 S Ct 2170; Divans v California, 434 US 1303, 54 ... L Ed 2d 14, 98 S Ct 1; Lee v United States, 432 US 23, 53 L ... ...
-
Nicholson on Behalf of Gollott v. State
...to force Gollott to move for a mistrial. Carter v. State, 402 So.2d 817, 821 (Miss.1981); see also Divans v. California, 434 U.S. 1303, 1303, 98 S.Ct. 1, 1, 54 L.Ed.2d 14, 15 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice, 1977). Without proof of judicial error prejudicing the defendant, or "bad faith prosecu......
-
Gilliam v. Foster
...state criminal proceedings makes plain, the trial judge had granted a mistrial in response to Divans' motion. See Divans v. California, 434 U.S. 1303, 98 S.Ct. 1, 54 L.Ed.2d 14 (Rehnquist, Circuit Justice 1977). When a defendant moves for and is granted a mistrial, the only circumstance in ......