Laguerre v. Georgia
Annotate this CaseA grand jury indicted Verlaine Laguerre and his co-defendant Prentice Baker for murder and related crimes. Trial was scheduled to take place around the holidays at the end of 2012. During both the week of December 22 and the following week, three to five jurors had conflicts, and that the first time that a complete jury could be back together would be January 8. During a recess, the trial court and the attorneys went into chambers where they determined that they had only two options: either the court should declare a mistrial or order a continuance for nearly three weeks from December 19 to January 8. Baker acquiesced in a mistrial because of the jurors’ apparent unpreparedness to be in a trial over nine days, and because it would not be in the best interest of the defense if it were blamed or placed in a negative light by continuation of the trial. The prosecutor also acquiesced in a mistrial as the “lesser of two evils,” expressing his concern over the jurors’ ability to recollect all the evidence after an extended break, especially when they were never told that there would be such a break. Over Laguerre’s objection, the trial court declared a mistrial, stating that the State in its discretion could try the case at a later date. In the subsequent order denying Laguerre’s plea of former jeopardy, the trial court expressly found no evidence that the State was benefitted by a delay, engaged in any prosecutorial misconduct, or did anything to induce a mistrial. Laguerre argued on appeal to the Supreme Court that the trial court abused its discretion in denying his plea of former jeopardy because the circumstances did not demonstrate the “manifest necessity” that was constitutionally required to authorize a mistrial over his objection. The Supreme Court affirmed, finding under the circumstances, the trial judge “acted in order to assure a fair trial, not only for[Laguerre] but for his codefendant and the prosecution as well.”
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.