Reply #3: This is going to raise an interesting question if the defendants appeal...

[Blackhatjack]

A mistrial can occur for any reason that denies the defendant a fair trial. It can arise because of the conduct of the parties, conduct of the counsel, failure to follow the rules on discovery prior to trial, exposing the jury to inadmissible evidence, or inadvertant conduct of the presiding judge, each of which would mandate entry of a mistrial.

If the prosecution decides not to retry the defendants on these charges, that will be the end of it and no further appeal is required. If the prosecution decides to retry the case, defendants may appeal the entry of the a mistrial by the Presiding Judge.

What is interesting here is that the jury verdict was read in court, indicating acquittals and upon polling the jury after the reading of the verdict(which is standard) some jurors changed their minds about the vote they cast making up the verdict in the sealed envelope.

Because the trial judge sealed the verdict in an envelope for an extended period of time and allowed the jurors to be exposed to outside influences before it was read, that may very well be judicial misconduct(even if inadvertant, or if caused by illness, etc) and might make for an interesting argument on the prohibition against 'double jeopardy.'

IT is the first time I ever heard of a judge sealing a jury verdict and not reading it for this long a time. Very unusual, and the trial judge should be examined as to the reasons for taking this unconventional step in a complex and contentious trial.