Yesterday the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Sixth Circuit issued an interesting divided opinion in Walls v. Konteh, a habeas case arising from a particularly interesting — and somewhat unique — set of facts connected to the events of September 11, 2001.
In September 2001, Lawrence Walls was on trial in an Ohio court for for various crimes. On September 11, as the horrific events in New York City and elsewhere began to unfold, the judge declared a mistrial, and rescheduled the case. Walls sought to dismiss the case on grounds that a new trial would constitute double jeopardy, but the judge rejected this motion and conducted a bench trial in November 2001. The court found Walls guilty on several counts and sentenced him to 11 years in prison. The decision was upheld on appeal.
The trial judge in this case testified that prior to declaring a mistrial, he was
concerned about the effect the breaking national news would have on the jury. The
judge noted the seriousness of the charges and testified he was worried the jurors
would not be able to devote their full attention to the evidence given the fact that the
country appeared to be under attack. He further testified that he considered the option
of instructing the jurors to return the next day. He testified he rejected the option
because, once again, he was worried about the jurors