Opinion ID: 2066238
Heading Depth: 1
Heading Rank: 10

Heading: Mid-trial Delay

Text: Brisbon moved for mistrial after a mid-trial delay of four weeks caused by the illness of Wonson's defense attorney, which the trial judge denied. A mistrial is a severe remedy  a step to be avoided whenever possible, and one to be taken only in circumstances manifesting a necessity therefor. Peyton v. United States, 709 A.2d 65, 69 (D.C.1998) (citation omitted). If the right of the defendant[ ] to a fair trial [can] be effectively secured by less drastic measures, then mistrial is not appropriate. Id. Here, the trial judge suspended the trial, but kept in touch with both Brisbon's attorney and the jury, appointed interim counsel for Wonson, consulted with Wonson's attorney, and provided additional time for closing arguments so that each party could recap the facts. Finally, the judge instructed the jury to not consider the delay when deliberating on the case. In light of the fact that significant resources had already been expended (selecting a jury and five days of testimony in presenting the government and defense cases), the trial court's several precautionary measures, and absent any evidence that Brisbon was prejudiced as a result of the delay, we conclude that the trial judge did not abuse discretion in denying the motion for mistrial.