The following excerpt is from Cravens v. State of Wash., 844 F.2d 791 (9th Cir. 1988):
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.
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.