Re: the June 12 article "Hung jury prompts mistrial in case of border aid worker."
Why did the judge declare a mistrial rather than innocent?
In a criminal trial unless all jurors agree he was guilty, he should be found innocent. Even in a civil case he would be innocent here.
https://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/mistrial says: "A retrial may be barred if the court grants a mistrial without the defendant's consent, or over his objection." Did Scott get the opportunity to object to this verdict of mistrial?
Are there two types of mistrials: agreed to and not? Agreed to allows double jeopardy. Not agreed amount to innocent.
I think this mistrial verdict shows judicial biased. By calling this verdict a mistrial rather than innocent, the government continues to scare people into thinking that perhaps Warren wasn't really found innocent. In particular, this sets a precedent that you still might be found guilty for doing what Scott did, when in fact the jury pretty clearly said he was more innocent than guilty.
I think the judge should have declared innocent, given the jury's verdict.
Disclaimer: As submitted to the Arizona Daily Star.