Rios v. the State (two Cases)

Summary

The court held that double jeopardy did not bar retrial after the trial court declared a mistrial because newly disclosed ballistic evidence was material, the court considered alternatives, and the circumstances constituted manifest necessity. The court also held that the prosecutor did not intentionally cause the mistrial, and any inadvertent computer-related discovery failure by a non-prosecutorial actor could not be attributed to the prosecutor. The judgments denying both defendants' pleas in bar were affirmed.