What the heck is a "mistrial?"  I thought it was when some ERROR arose that made the proceedings invalid==like jurors investigating the case themselves, or being bribed, or listening to tv news and so forth.

But the SCt case decided yesterday makes it sounds like it also arises when the jury can't agree on a verdict which is what I thought was a "Not Guilty" verdict?  You know--only one person has to hold out?

Can anyone makes sense of this for me?

Defined:  mistrial:  1.
a trial terminated without conclusion on the merits of the case because of some error in the proceedings.
2.
an inconclusive trial, as where the jury cannot agree.

Here is a short summary of the issue: http://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/25/us/justices-uphold-retrials-even-after-juries-reject-charges.html   ".....Mr. Blueford was charged under four theories, in decreasing order of seriousness: capital murder (though the state did not seek the death penalty), first-degree murder, manslaughter and negligent homicide.

The jurors were instructed to consider the most serious charge first and move to the next only if they unanimously agreed that Mr. Blueford was not guilty. In this way, they were to work their way down to the appropriate conviction, or to an acquittal.

After a few hours of deliberation, the jurors announced that they were deadlocked. The forewoman told the judge that the jury had unanimously agreed that Mr. Blueford was not guilty of capital or first-degree murder, but she said it was divided, 9 to 3, in favor of guilt on the manslaughter charge.

The jury deliberated for an additional half-hour but could not reach a verdict. The court declared a mistrial. "

I thought I understood procedural error, but the quote above is clearly a judgement that the State did not prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt?  What am I missing?

A hung jury is a miss-trail since it a basic tenet of a trial by one's peers that they must come to a unanimous decision! Or in other words a hung jury has the balls to disagree!
But in the case of an appeal to a higher court, the panel only needs a majority of 50% +1 to make a decision regards the original court's decision. Plus the panel has the option to refuse to hear the appeal for reasons they may or may not disclose.

Another type of mistrial is where the original case judge declares a mistrial for one or more of various reasons, such as tainted evidence, a bribe offered and or accepted by a jury member or a witness [tampering], incorrect/unacceptable police procedure(s), conflict of interest on the part of any member of the court, including the judge, and so on. In some cases the charges maybe withdrawn based on the nature of the mistrial and the probability that a conviction would be improbable to obtain. 

A mistrial declared does not preclude the setting of a new trial and date using a new, different jury poo, plus the presentation of newly acquired evidence not available in the first triall. In fact the term mistrial is sort of a catch all phrase covering a multiple of conditions and reasons. It is one of those words which defy a tight narrow definition......which maybe where your comprehension  problem stems from!

Holy CRAP!!!!!!

My whole life I thought that if a jury voted 11 guilty 1 not sure that that resulted in a "Not Guilty" verdict.  ie--12 people were not convinced beyond a reasonable doubt of a person's guilt so that person is ruled "Not Guilty" or not proven guilty or however you wish to phrase it.  Decades of tv saying "I only have to find doubt in ONE JUROR!" 

But the linked case, the dictionary, and now you say that 11 to One is a mistrial?

I'm facing a life long misperception being challenged here.  Ha. ha.  I still believe this can't be right.......but being a Man of Science- - - I'll research this a little bit more.

GUILTY
NOT GUILTY
INNOCENT
MISTRIAL

Basic words of criminal justice system and at my age/experience/exposure I evidently don't have the basic definitions down.  What a great day to be alive.....and willing to learn.

I should qualify my response. Somewhere in the 10 Provinces and 50 States plus the UK, Australia, N.Z., etc. there is probably an exception to the general practice of jury verdicts that I am not aware of!
And yes the Defense Attorney's do their best to select jury duty panelists who are more easily convinced hoping for that one who will hang the jury instead of the defendant!
The unanimous rule ends at the Appellate Courtroom doors. That is where a panel of Appellate Court Judges can and often make split decisions, as does the Supreme Court!
Also it is an unwritten law, that primary courtroom judges go out of their way to follow precedents found in the past decisions of Appellate Court and Supreme Court rulings in order to avoid personal criticism from the higher courts. Tenure on the bench is not guaranteed ,especially in those rare bailey wicks which get to elect their judges/magistrates. It is a very fascinating subject area to study.

Update re: mistrial concept.....

 http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/05/31/john-edwards-trial-mistrial_n_1560562.html

Classic case it appears! It is rumored that the government lawyers will not refile charges on the five counts declared miss tried.

http://news.yahoo.com/jurors-evidence-john-edwards-case-fell-short-115146839.html

http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-250_162-57445354/john-edwards-unlikely-to-face-a-retrial/

Yeah, I'm only 99% convinced now.  I have grown up my whole life thinking that a jury deliberation resulting in 11 people voting guilty and one person voting not guilty that that meant the State had not met its burden of proof and you had been found "Not Guilty" and that double jeopardy applied.  I never realized that either verdict had to be reached by all 12 jurors.  I'd say that swings the burden of proof way against the charged defendant and the only thing saving most of them is the cost of the retrial?

and yet I've watched "12 Angry Men" and other shows where there is just one hold out.  Mistrial leading to retrial?  This must be crystal clear to so many people and I missed it completely.  Evidently, the situation wasn't all that clear to the Edwards jury either given they reported too early to the judge?  "You have to all agree on all the counts -- 12 votes for guilty or 12 votes for not guilty on each charge or there will be a mistrial and the defendant will be subject to a brand new trial.  Now, go deliberate."  Now its clear to me.  Stinks of double jeopardy.

IN the case of the John Edwards trial, it has been rumored that the State will not refile charges on the 5 counts, since several jurors have chirped that the State did not provide enough evidence to make their case.

Now this is where American Justice varies from the Canadian counter part. It is illegal upon threat of prosecution for any juror to disclose anything that was said or concluded with in a jury deliberation. It must remain for ever sealed and confidential! this is something that I cannot understand or agree with!

Technically, if there is a hung jury/mistrial, and a retrial results, it is not double jeopardy. It is like another round at trying to get a decision in over time if you compare it to sports!

And another thing to consider: Juries are not always comprised of the brightest minds on the Planet! Trial lawyers deliberately try to select those who they perceive to be the most easily persuaded.
 To wit: My wife was called to stand in the selection process for a local famous murder trial of a pair of motorcycle club members who had executed one of their own sibling brother. The star witness was a former biker from that gang who had worn a wire plus was paid over $1 million dollars as a paid informant. To sit on this jury there was some extra pay arranged for addition costs to jurors. As a former credit collections portfolio manager for a big well known leasing corporation on this continent, it was deemed by the defense lawyers she was not an easily persuaded person and she was quickly excused in the selection process! As a retiree, she would have welcomed the extra cash which would have been tax free or at a lower rate! Our only other regret was that the jury which did sit on this case for some months acquitted the pair after all that tax money spent on the witness who was and still is the witness protection program. It was deemed that the Crown Attorneys did not prove beyond a shadow of a doubt that a conspiracy to commit, and commit murder was proven. So much for prudent use of our tax dollars!

and yet I've watched "12 Angry Men" and other shows where there is just one hold out.

Watch 12 Angry Men again. The trial did not end until the jurors were unanimous. In fact, that was a major point in the title of the movie. Most of the jurors didn't really care that much at the start of the deliberation. They just wanted to take a quick vote and go home in time for dinner. All but one initially assumed guilt. The one hold out wanted to have the debate because a boy's life was at stake. If one hold out meant not guilty, it would have been a short movie.

All 12 must vote the same way in a criminal trial. I'm not sure about civil cases. The reasonable doubt test is to be applied in each juror's mind. Any juror who has reasonable doubt legally must vote not guilty. In practice, this probably does not happen. Though, I've never gotten on a jury. My opinions are always too strong for one side or the other to accept me. My radical ways always save me ... without even needing to be dishonest in any way. I just am that radical.

<aside>
I once tried to state that I could be impartial and do my job as a juror in the case of an alleged cocaine dealer despite my belief that all drugs should be legal. But, for some reason, I was removed from the jury. I can't imagine why. I think that what clinched the deal that time was when they asked what I thought of the case an unarmed alleged pot dealer who had recently (at that time) been shot by police officers and killed. I believe I stated that entirely too many unarmed people were being killed by police officers but didn't see the relevance to the current case. Or, perhaps it was just prior to that question when they asked if anyone felt drugs should be legal. Many hands went up, including mine. Then the lawyer clarified, which drugs? Just marijuana or all drugs? Me (loudly): All drugs! We can't get rid of the drugs but can get rid of the drug lords with the stroke of a pen. Defendant laughs.

Strange that I was kept off that case, no? (Note: That was my best attempt at deadpan. Didn't work, did it?)

That was as close as I ever got. Other cases were even farther from me getting on the jury.
</aside>

I'll research this a little bit more.

GUILTY
NOT GUILTY
INNOCENT
MISTRIAL

Basic words of criminal justice system and at my age/experience/exposure I evidently don't have the basic definitions down.  What a great day to be alive.....and willing to learn.

Just my interpretation. I could be mistaken.

GUILTY - After the jury decides or the defendant pleas guilty. Now the defendant is a convicted criminal.
NOT GUILTY - A plea by the defendant or a verdict by a jury.
INNOCENT - Neither a plea nor a verdict. This is the state of the defendant until a plea of guilty or a guilty verdict by the jury. Also, this is the state of the defendant after a not guilty verdict.
MISTRIAL - Failure of a trial to come to the conclusion of guilty or not guilty.

It is an important note if you ever get on a jury that the defendant is innocent. Until a plea of guilty by the defendant or a verdict of guilty from the jury, the defendant is innocent. This is the definition of "innocent until proven guilty". In each juror's mind, the defendant legally must be considered innocent at the start of the trial. During the trial and deliberations some or all of the jury may become convinced of the defendant's guilt. But, the defendant starts out innocent and remains so until the verdict is reached.

After a mistrial, the defendant remains innocent. However, I do not believe a hung jury or any other mistrial ever counts. I believe it is as if the trial never took place. Note that this is not the same as an appeal, which is when one side claims that an error was committed in the trial even though a verdict was reached thus invalidating the verdict.

Double jeopardy would disallow a retrial due to new evidence or any other reason after a not guilty verdict was reached. I am not sure whether prosecutors can appeal a not guilty verdict. Does anyone know?

I agree with what you posted.

I've read about prosecutor appeals of not guilty based on defendant misconduct like intimidation of or paying a jury member.  There might be some other kind of limited areas of appeal.  The big boner though is a full criminal trial in State Court with a Not Guilty Verdict and then another charge and trial on all the same fact issues but a claimed violation of Federal Crime.  "Its the law."

Yeah. There's something weird with different courts. If some TV shows (like The Good Wife) can be trusted, it is possible to try someone in our criminal courts and then, if that fails, try them in military court, provided they are military personnel. I don't get how switching from state crime to federal crime to military crime for the same act is not double jeopardy, but somehow they get away with that, I think.

The theory is they are two completely separate crimes.  Still no double jeopardy of being charged twice for the same crime, or the lesser or greater of the single crime involved.  It can make sense in a few cases, but in the main==its two shots at the apple.

I don't think its that big a deal.  No large "justice issue" being violated with a single retrial in my book.  The rule is there to prevent one after another trials until they finally get you.  Perhaps even, Justice should allow for 1-2-3 trials when honest new evidence arises and so forth?

Why not?

Perhaps even, Justice should allow for 1-2-3 trials when honest new evidence arises and so forth?

Why not?

Well, just to take the other side, imagine you're accused of a crime. You sit in jail or pay bail while waiting for trial, hire expensive lawyers, have your whole life examined and potentially splattered all over the news. At the end, you are found not guilty. You remain an innocent person. True, no one has reimbursed you for your time in prison, your expensive lawyers, your lost wages and probably lost job, your lost friends and respect of the community. But, you're out. You can start rebuilding your life. True, it will never be as good as the one you had before you were wrongly accused. But, you can at least try.

Now, after a few years of this, some new person comes forth with new eyewitness testimony, the worst possible form of evidence and the one most often believed.

Now it starts all over again. If you're lucky, a jury of your peers again finds you not guilty and again get to try to rebuild. Then, they find some more circumstantial evidence and it's back to court for round three.

Perhaps it would only be horrifically bad but not catastrophic to your life if the state reimbursed you for your troubles. Perhaps if there were some limitation on the type of evidence that could reopen a case it would not be as bad. Eyewitness testimony sure as hell shouldn't do it. Circumstantial evidence shouldn't. Maybe in cases where new technology that did not exist at the time of your trial comes to light, such as DNA today reopening old trials from before DNA testing existed.

Just keep in mind with your suggestion the damage you are doing to the life of an innocent person, i.e. one who has not been found guilty and is therefore, by the definition of our society, innocent.

We would need a very subjective cost benefit analysis to increasing the number of guilty people convicted for their crimes along with increasing the number of innocents prosecuted and sometimes convicted despite their real and literal (as opposed to legal) innocence of the crimes in question.

I'm glad we agree.