State of Connecticut v. Richard Anderson; State of Connecticut v. Janice Anderson — Katz, J., dissenting

Summary

The dissent would conclude that the mistrial was constitutionally improper because the state failed to establish that a continuance with substitute counsel was infeasible, and the trial court failed to make the inquiries necessary to evaluate that alternative. Although the trial court reasonably determined that waiting for the original prosecutor was not feasible, the record did not support rejecting substitute counsel or adequately demonstrate manifest necessity. The dissent therefore would not defer to the trial court's unsupported assessment of the alternatives to mistrial.