Let’s say Jane is accused of statutory rape. She and her lawyer both know that if it comes out that the child used false pretenses and lied about her age, a mistrial will be declared. This doesn’t acquit Jane but it doesn’t (figuratively) hang her, either, and it does cost the state money. Since Jane has no rational hope of beating the rap entirely, screwing with the system is the last fun she’ll ever get to have.
How many times in a row can Jane or one of her attorneys force a mistrial? What happens after the last time? Assume Jane is rich and can reliably find attorneys to play along.
Speaking generically, a judge has a few tools to control his or her court. I assume from your hypothetical that Jane won’t mind contempt sanctions–even if they add up to sizable jail time, let’s say she would rather have that on her record than a statutory rape conviction.
A judge can also order her to be gagged (again, speaking from the generic jurisdiction; your state may vary). If the prosecutor didn’t need her and it was in her greater interest not to take the stand, she may never eek out what she wants to say.
If her attorney puts her on the stand knowing she is going to cause a mistrial, he or she could end up with significant sanctions. Perhaps he could arrange to have strong evidence of telling Jane not to do so, but since she has the right (IIRC) to take the stand, he couldn’t outright stop her. This also becomes somewhat moot if she is acting pro se.
The judge also has tremendous leeway with what he tells the jury. He can, for example, negate her claim of influence by telling them that it should carry no weight for X, Y, and Z reasons. Since he doesn’t have to declare a mistrial (generally), he still could let it go to the jury. An appellate court seeing her for the second time for similar reasons is unlikely to grant her a mistrial on appeal.
Lastly, the judge could probably just revoke bail and leave Jane in prison until her trial goes through. But she may be content to wait it out, knowing that her shenanigans need to pay off only once (an acquittal) so it may be worth it.
I’m not following the OP. Why wouldn’t the information about the complaint using false pretences and lying about age be a defence for Jane? Also, why does the OP assume that it would result in a mistrial? Conflicting evidence is common in trials; it’s the role of the jury to decide what to believe.
I’m assuming because in most jurisdictions statutory rape is a strict liability crime – lack of intent or knowledge is not an excuse, but at the same time, it could be unduly prejudice the jury.
The short answer is, as many as the judge lets her get away with. Justice must be done, regardless of how long it takes or how many attempts are made (subject to double jeopardy, of course). I’ve never heard of more than two mistrials before the court reached a final verdict (and that’s exceedingly rare), although I’m sure there have been more somewhere out there.
That was my first reaction too: statutory rape is strict liability, there is no mens rea requirement and the underaged party being deceptive about his age is no defense.
I’m also not sure that allowing the jury of these facts would necessarily lead to a mistrial. While the information has a danger of being slightly prejudicial, I think it could be handled with an instruction to the jury.
Lastly, the prosecutor has the discretion to dismiss the case, and for low-value trials, they will do just this after a mistrial.
What would the judge do to finally stop her and her attorney? Remember that I said Jane can pay the attorneys to force mistrial as well, so regardless of whether she’s in the courtroom and allowed to speak in her own defense a mistrial will happen.
Remember that she can’t pay her attorneys to force a mistrial–being officers of the court, they would face severe sanctions. Yes, attorneys break the law all the time, but your suggesting they be flagrant about it in front of the person (the judge) who has the ability to impose penalties.
I think if she really pushed it, the judge would simply refuse to declare a mistrial and take all steps he can to limit her attempts’ effect. Note that the judge is fairly analogous to a sports referee. Without crossing any lines, a friendly or hostile judge/ref can make quite a difference. Letting her shenanigans fly by he risks her being acquitted, but has the power to even the odds.
If she is voluntarily injecting prohibited testimony into the trial that would have been cause for a mistrial otherwise, the appellate court is unlikely to grant an appeal (assuming she was convicted and then appealed on whatever grounds she tried to create for a mistrial).
That doesn’t happen much any more. It looks too bad, and even if gagged a person can be a distraction in the courtroom.
More common is to have them removed from the courtroom, and placed in a small locked room where they can watch the proceedings on closed circuit TV, with a phone or intercom arrangement that allows them to speak to their lawyer. But they have no way to shout out or otherwise disturb the courtroom.
Many courthouses have such facilities nowadays. They are sometimes used for ‘remote’ hearings – the accused may be many miles away from the courtroom, watching/appearing via closed circuit TV in the courtroom. Sometimes even the lawyers & the Judge aren’t all physically present in the same location. This is being used in jurisdictions where long distances or bad weather make it difficult to get everyone together in a single courtroom.