Robbins et al. v. State of Arizona et al.

Argument summary

AI-generated — not an official transcript or court record.

1. The State argued that when prosecutorial misconduct taints a jury, the dispositive inquiry is whether the error was intentional with indifference to mistrial; if not, double jeopardy does not bar retrial.
2. State counsel conceded that the issue of defendant consent to the mistrial was likely waived or weak, but maintained that manifest necessity alone justified the trial court's refusal to withdraw the mistrial order after defense counsel changed their position.
3. Defense counsel argued that the defendants did not consent to a mistrial without prejudice, noting that one attorney never requested a mistrial and the other conditioned his request on dismissal with prejudice.
4. The defense contended that the trial court abused its discretion by ignoring the defendants' subsequent request to proceed with the trial, violating their primary control over the proceedings under Dennis v. United States.
5. Justices questioned whether consent and manifest necessity are separate inquiries for double jeopardy purposes, noting that the Court of Appeals may have conflated the two concepts.
6. Defense counsel identified specific prejudice to retrial, including the state's ability to use previously precluded evidence and new disclosures obtained after the first trial ended.

Recordings

1. Recording · PT48M28S · Captions available