N O T FO R PUB L ICAT IO N UNITED STATES C OUR T OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH C IR C UIT
KIP HAR TM A

N, Pe t i tione r-Appe lle e , v. AUSTIN KNUDSEN; M AR C IA B OR IS,

R e sponde nts-Appe lla

nts. No. 22-35694

D.C . No. 9:22-c v-00057-DLC
M EM O R ANDUM *

Appe a l from

the Unite d

Stat e s Distric t C ourt for the Distric t of M o nta

na Dana L. C hriste nse n, Distric t Judge , Pre siding Argue d a nd Subm itte d M ay

10, 2023 Se attle , W a s hington B e fore : HAW KINS, W
. FLETC HER , a nd IKUTA, C irc uit Judge s. The Stat e of M onta

na a ppe a l s the distric t c ourt’ s orde r gran ting Kip Hartm an’ s Pe tition for W rit of Ha be a s C orpus unde r 28 U.S.C . § 2241 on double je opa rdy grounds. “ W e re vie w de novo a distric t c ourt’ s de c ision gra nting or de ny ing a pe tition for a

writ of ha

be a s c orpus file d pursua

nt to [28 U.S.C .] 

# FIL ED

MAY17 2023 M OLLY C. DW Y E R, CLERK U. S. CO URT O F APPEALS

* This disposition is not a ppropria te for public at ion a

nd is not pre c e de nt e xc e pt a s provide d

by Ninth C irc uit R

ule 36-3.§ 2241,” W

ilson v . Be lle que , 554 F.3d 816, 828 (9th C ir. 2009), a nd we re vie w “ [a ] judic ia l de t e rm ination of m anife st ne c e ssity . . . for a buse of disc re t ion,” Unite d State s v . C hapman , 524 F.3d 1073, 1082 (9th C ir. 2008). W e a ffirm
. The distric t c ourt did not err in gra n ting Ha rtm a n ’ s pe tition for writ of ha be a s c orpus on double

je opa rdy grounds be c a

use the sta

te tria l c ourt a

b use d its disc re tion in de c la

ring a m istria l out of m anife st ne c e ssity . The Double Je opa rdy C la use of the Fifth Am e ndm e nt prote c ts “ a de fe nda nt’ s va lue d right to ha

ve his tria l c om p le te d by a pa rtic ula r tribuna l.” W

ade v . Hunte r , 336 U.S. 684, 689 (1949). W

hile this right “

m ust in some insta

n c e s be subordina

t e d to thepublic ’ s inte re s t in fa i r tria ls de signe d to e nd in just judgm e n ts,” id. , the re m

ust be a “ high de gre e ” of ne c e ssity , re fe rre d to a s “ m anife st ne c e ssity ,” be fore a c ourt m ay
c onc lude tha

t a m istria l is a

ppropria te ove r the obje c tion of thede fe nda nt, Arizona
v . W ashington , 434 U.S. 497, 505–06 (1978). C o urts m ay prope rly find m a nife s t
ne c e ssity “ to de c la re a m istria l if a

n im p artia l ve rdic t c annot be re a c he d, or if a
ve rdic t of c onvic tion c o u ld be re a c he d but would ha

ve to be re ve rse d on a

ppe a l due to a n obvious proc e dura l e rror in the tria l,” Illinois v . Some rv ille , 410 U.S. 458, 464 (1973), or a

m istria l is ne e de d to “ a fford[] the prose c utor one full a nd fa ir opportunity

to pre se nt his e vide nc e to a n im pa rtia l jury , ” W

ashington , 434 U.S. a

t 505.
2The tria l c ourt he re did not identify any e ve nts giving rise

to the high de gre e of ne c e ssity

for a m istria l tha

t c ourts ha ve pre viously

re c ogniz e d
. The re wa s no obvious proc e dura l e rror in thetria l tha t would re quire re ve rsa l on a ppe a l; the
re c o rd doe s not e sta

blish tha t Ha rtm an’ s c ounse l provide d ine ffe c tive a ssista nc e of
c ounse l or tha

t c ounse l ha d a c o nflic t of inte re s t with his c lie nt “ that a ffe c te d
c ounse l’ s pe rform an c e .” Mic k e ns v .Tay lor , 535 U.S. 162, 171 (2002) (e m pha sis
re m ove d). Nor wa s the d e c la ration of a

m i stria l ne c e ssa

ry to prote c t the State ’ s right to a fa ir tria l, sinc e the prose c utor a gre e d to c oope rate to stre am line the
re m a inde r of the tria l. Inste a d, the tria l c ourt de te rm i ne d tha t de c la ring a m istria l
wa s ne c e s sa

ry be c a use it ha d se t a

lim ite d am ount of tim e for tria l a nd de c line d, ba se d on doc ke t m ana ge m e nt c onc e rns, to e x t e nd this time fram e for a pe riod suffic i e nt to a llow Ha

rtm an to e xe rc ise his Sixth Ame ndm e nt right to te stify on his own be h a lf. Suc h tim e -m ana g e m e nt c onc e rns do not rise to the high de gre e of
ne c e ssity re quire d be fore de priving Ha rtm an of his “va lue d right to ha ve his tria l
c om ple t e d by a pa rtic ula r tribuna l.” W

ade , 336 U.S. a

t 689. M ore ove r, be c a

use the t ria l c ourt did not “ c o n side r[] pla usible a lte rnative s” to de c la ring a m istria l, the tria l c ourt de se rve s littlede fe re nc e for its de c ision. C hapman , 524 F.3d a

t 1082. Ac c ordingly , we c onc lude tha t the tria l c ourt a

buse d its disc re tion in de c la ring a m istria l, a

nd the Double Je opa

rdy C la use ba rs a re t ria l of Ha rtm an.
3AFFIRM E D.

4