Under what circumstance can a mistrial be retried after being declared over the Defendant’s objection?

A mistrial can be retried after being declared over the defendant’s objection in situations where there is "manifest necessity" for the mistrial. This legal concept applies when unforeseen circumstances arise during the trial that prevent it from continuing in a fair manner. "Manifest necessity" serves as a critical test for determining whether a retrial can take place even when the defendant or one of the parties does not consent to it.

In cases of manifest necessity, the trial judge might find that the issues at hand—such as a hung jury, serious misconduct, or other disruptions—are severe enough that proceeding with the trial would undermine the integrity of the judicial process. As a result, the judge might conclude that declaring a mistrial is not only justified but essential to uphold the rights of the parties involved, particularly the right to a fair trial.

The other circumstances mentioned, such as when the judge deems it necessary, when both parties consent, or when new evidence emerges, do not meet the legal threshold for allowing a person to be retried after a mistrial has been declared against their wishes. The autonomy of the defendant to refuse retrial is key, and "manifest necessity" provides a solid foundation for moving forward with application of justice even when that consent is