Court Opinion

ID: 9706467
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-26 01:44:18.017599+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T18:22:22.751006
License: Public Domain

LANSING, Judge,
dissenting.
A reviewing court should give “special respect” to a trial court’s declaration of a mistrial. State v. Stillday, 417 N.W.2d 728, 733 (Minn.App.1988), review denied (Minn. Mar. 18, 1988); Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 510, 98 S.Ct. 824, 832-33, 54 L.Ed.2d 717 (1978). The trial judge, listening to the tone of the argument and observing the reactions of the jurors, is in the best position to evaluate the manifest necessity of a mistrial. Washington, 434 U.S. at 513-14, 98 S.Ct. at 834.
The undisclosed taped statements alternately contradicted and reinforced Evelyn Long’s sworn testimony. Issues relating to credibility are critical in cases when the only two witnesses to a crime contradict each other. I would defer to the district court’s determination that the state’s failure to produce the recorded statements resulted in un*790fair and unavoidable prejudice requiring a mistrial.
I respectfully dissent.