obvious procedural error in Michigan

2001However, manifest necessity justifying a retrial can also exist where a conviction would be reversed on appeal because of “ ‘an obvious procedural error in the trial.’ ” Id. at 363 , quoting Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458, 464 ; 93 S Ct 1066 ; 35 L Ed 2d 425 (1973).

2001However, manifest necessity justifying a retrial can also exist where a conviction would be reversed on appeal because of “ ‘an obvious procedural error in the trial.’ ” Id. at 363 , quoting Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458, 464 ; 93 S Ct 1066 ; 35 L Ed 2d 425 (1973).

2026Manifest necessity “appears to refer to the existence of sufficiently compelling circumstances that would otherwise deprive the defendant of a fair trial or make its completion impossible.” Therefore, “[a] trial judge properly exercises his discretion to declare a mistrial if an impartial verdict cannot be reached, or if a verdict of conviction could be reached but would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural error in the trial.” [Echavarria, 233 Mich App at 363 (citations omitted).] During the first trial, the trial court declared a mistrial because Haley, Sr., volunteered

2024Therefore, a trial judge properly exercises his discretion to declare a mistrial if an impartial verdict cannot be reached, or if a verdict of conviction could be reached but would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural error in the trial. [People v Echavarria, 233 Mich App 356, 363 ; 592 NW2d 737 (1999) (quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted).] “Neither party has a right to have his case decided by a jury which may be tainted by bias; in these circumstances, the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments must prevail over the defendant’

1994Although there is no precise test concerning what constitutes "manifest necessity," it appears to refer to the existence of sufficiently compelling circumstances that would otherwise deprive the defendant of a fair trial or make its completion impossible. [3] Accordingly, "`A trial judge properly exercises his discretion to declare a mistrial if an impartial verdict cannot be reached, or if a verdict of conviction ... would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural error in the trial.'" Benton, supra at 57 , quoting Illinois v *203 Somerville, 410 US 458, 464 ; 93 S Ct 1066 ;

1994Although there is no precise test concerning what constitutes "manifest necessity,” it appears to refer to the existence of sufficiently compelling circumstances that would otherwise deprive the defendant of a fair trial or make its completion impossible. 3 Accordingly, " 'A trial judge properly exercises his discretion to declare a mistrial if an impartial verdict cannot be reached, or if a verdict of conviction . . . would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural error in the trial.’ ” Benton, supra at 57 , quoting Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458, 464 ; 93 S Ct 1066 ; 35

1977In Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458, 464, 471 ; 93 S Ct 1066 ; 35 L Ed 2d 425 (1973), the Court ruled that there was manifest necessity where under local law a defect in the indictment was not curable by amendment and could not be waived by the defendant’s failure to object: "A trial judge properly exercises his discretion to declare a mistrial if an impartial verdict cannot be reached, or if a verdict of conviction * * * would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural error in the trial.” 12 The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reconciled Somerville and

1977In Illinois v Somerville, 410 US 458, 464, 471 ; 93 S Ct 1066 ; 35 L Ed 2d 425 (1973), the Court ruled that there was manifest necessity where under local law a defect in the indictment was not curable by amendment and could not be waived by the defendant's failure to object: "A trial judge properly exercises his discretion to declare a mistrial if an impartial verdict cannot be reached, or if a verdict of conviction * * * would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural error in the trial." [12] The United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reconciled Somerville an

2024Therefore, a trial judge properly exercises his discretion to declare a mistrial if an impartial verdict cannot be reached, or if a verdict of conviction could be reached but would have to be reversed on appeal due to an obvious procedural error in the trial. [People v Echavarria, 233 Mich App 356, 363 ; 592 NW2d 737 (1999) (quotation marks, citations, and alteration omitted).] “Neither party has a right to have his case decided by a jury which may be tainted by bias; in these circumstances, the public’s interest in fair trials designed to end in just judgments must prevail over the defendant’

2024A defendant’s “valued right to have the trial concluded by a particular tribunal is sometimes subordinate to the public interest in affording the prosecutor one full and fair opportunity to present his evidence to an impartial jury.” Id. at 505 .

2023MCR 2.612(A)(1) allows a trial court to correct clerical mistakes arising from oversight or omission so as to make the written record “accurately reflect what was done and decided . . . .” Central Cartage Co, 232 Mich App at 536 (quotation marks and citation omitted).