Hightower v. State

Michelle Hightower was on trial for murder in Fulton County when, midway through her trial in March 2020, the county's chief judge declared a judicial emergency because of the spreading COVID-19 pandemic, barring jury trials for 30 days. The trial judge declared a mistrial over Hightower's objection, even though her defense lawyer suggested finishing the trial over the weekend or pausing it until the emergency ended. Hightower later argued that retrying her would violate double jeopardy, the constitutional protection against being tried twice for the same crime, because there was no real need (called manifest necessity) for the mistrial and the judge did not properly weigh other options. The trial court disagreed and refused to dismiss the case, and Hightower appealed. The Supreme Court of Georgia agreed with the trial court, holding that the pandemic emergency, combined with a sick juror and a witness with flu-like symptoms, justified ending the trial, and that the judge had genuinely considered and reasonably rejected the alternatives Hightower proposed.

A trial court does not abuse its discretion by declaring a mistrial based on manifest necessity, meaning a high degree of genuine need, when a countywide judicial emergency over COVID-19 transmission, combined with real health concerns among trial participants, made continuing the trial unworkable and the judge had considered and reasonably rejected less drastic alternatives.

The ruling confirms that Georgia trial judges can declare mistrials during public health emergencies like COVID-19 without automatically barring a retrial, giving courts flexibility during future crises while reassuring prosecutors that pandemic-related mistrials will not let serious charges be dismissed on double jeopardy grounds.

Affirmed

1. The court applied the manifest necessity standard, which requires a high degree of genuine need before a judge can declare a mistrial over a defendant's objection without barring a retrial under the Double Jeopardy Clause.
2. Because there was no allegation of prosecutorial misconduct, the court gave broad discretion to the trial judge's mistrial decision, explaining that appellate review asks only whether reasonable judges could differ, not whether the appellate court would have ruled the same way.
3. The court found that concerns about the health of jurors, witnesses, and court personnel during the early, uncertain days of the COVID-19 pandemic were a legitimate part of managing a criminal trial, not an improper outside consideration.
4. The court noted that the trial court knew of concrete health problems during the trial, including a juror who feared she had strep throat and a witness reporting worsening flu-like symptoms, which supported treating the pandemic as a real problem for this specific trial.
5. The court reviewed the two alternatives defense counsel proposed, finishing the trial that weekend or pausing it indefinitely, and concluded the judge reasonably rejected both because one would have violated the county's emergency order and the other offered no certainty about when the same jury could reconvene.
6. Because the judge actually exercised judgment, considered the defense's suggestions, and had a concrete basis for finding manifest necessity, the court held there was no abuse of discretion in declaring the mistrial or in later denying Hightower's plea in bar.

• double jeopardy
• COVID-19 judicial emergency
• mistrial
• murder trial
• Fulton County