A competent defense attorney would at least try to claim that the jury could no longer return an unbiased verdict, although as said upthread the judge is hardly likely to reward the defendant for misconduct.
Has that ever happened? I’m pretty sure any court system would rule that out of order, otherwise there would be such an obvious loophole?
Check out the “invited error” doctrine
If a problem is of your own doing, you really can’t complain about it.
And judges often give a direction to the jury that they are to ignore certain statements or conduct that are not admissible.
Judge Kaplan gave just such a direction in the most recent Carroll trial, when Habba made statements that were not admissible.
The court system assumes that most jurors are sensible people who can focus on the truly relevant matters and follow directions about irrelevant matters.
When Charles Manson didn’t like the judges ruling on one issue, Manson attempted to attack the judge. The defense motioned for a mistrial. Judge Older said the the defendants could not profit from their own misdeeds.
But which way would the jury be biased. If they thought the threat was credible (imagine a trial of a mafioso) they might be afraid to return a guilty verdict. Is there any conceivable way a court could rule that he has lost his right to a jury trial?
It’s probably a bad idea to even hum an inappropriate tune in court.
The video linked above talks about the court needing to avoid undue prejudice, not all prejudice. If the defendant testifies something stupid, or acts defiantly on the stand, that may prejudice the jury but it’s fair game. The same with other actions in court.
Look at videos of Darrell Brooks (Waukesha Christmas parade attack) representing himself in court. He yells at the judge repeatedly. The judge was careful to avoid having his worst outbursts seen by the jury, but they saw him act in many loud and disruptive ways at times, often directed at the judge. There was no mistrial. I never saw him threaten the jury.
But that would lead to a charge of jury tampering, I’m sure… plus, if there’s evidence of significant jury tampering does that nullify any “not guilty” verdict?
There are court rulings that jeopardy hasn’t attached in trials where corruption or collusion has taken place; I couldn’t find anything in a quick search related to jury tampering but I assume it would be similar. In those cases, a new trial wouldn’t violate double jeopardy.
That’s exactly the point of “mistrial”. The first attempt was so messed up for whatever reasons, that both sides get a do-over. By design that’s not double jeopardy.
Generally that’s true. But in limited situations, if the prosecution is the cause, double jeopardy might be in play.
In United State v. Dinitz, 424 U. S. 611, The Supreme Court said: “The Double Jeopardy Clause does protect a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests, and thereby to subject defendants to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions.”