Pretrial Detainee's 2241 Motion Granted to Prevent Retrial

Walck v. Edmondson, 2007 WL 18921 (1/4/07) - A nice habeas victory. The 10th holds a pretrial detainee properly pursued her attempts to prevent her retrial through 28 U.S.C. § 2241, rather than § 2254. As a result, the ridiculously stringent relief preclusion rules ["contrary to" "unreasonable application"] did not apply; no deference was owed the Oklahoma courts' resolution of the issues. The petitioner's case presented extraordinary circumstances warranting federal intervention before the retrial started because the retrial itself would violate her Double Jeopardy right not to undergo a second trial. A retrial would violate Double Jeopardy where at the first trial the court granted a mistrial after a couple witnesses testified when the court was told a government witness was in the hospital having a C-Section. The missing witness did not create a manifest necessity because: right before the trial began the government knew the witness might not be able to testify [she was on her way to the hospital to have the baby]; the government may have been able to present her preliminary hearing testimony to the jury; the court could have granted a continuance for several days without discharging the jury; the witness was not that important a witness. Prosecutorial misconduct was not necessary for relief to be granted. The existence of manifest necessity is the issue.