Unpublished Disposition, 844 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1988)Annotate this Case
Jack E. CRAVENS, Petitioner/Appellant,v.STATE OF WASHINGTON, Respondent/Appellee.
United States Court of Appeals, Ninth Circuit.
Submitted March 17, 1988.* Decided April 12, 1988.
Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Washington; Justin L. Quackenbush, District Judge Presiding.
Before NELSON, NOONAN and LEAVY, Circuit Judges.
Jack E. Cravens appeals the denial of his 28 U.S.C. § 2254 petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Cravens contends that the double jeopardy clause bars his reprosecution because the trial judge erred in declaring a mistrial based on manifest necessity. The judgment is affirmed.
The trial court's declaration of mistrial was based on defense misconduct and thus is entitled to great deference. See Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 511 (1978). Under that deferential standard of review, the record supports the trial court's finding that the defense attorney's reference to polygraphs constituted prejudicial error. Further, the trial judge exercised sound discretion in declaring a mistrial because he gave both parties an opportunity to argue the mistrial decision, considered the double jeopardy consequences of the mistrial decision, and expressly considered the possible alternatives (II ER 63-69, 101-108). See id. at 515-516.