Government of the Virgin Islands v. Colbourne
HOFFMAN, Judge ORDER The Court, having found this defendant guilty after trial on February 2,1976, now hereby orders a new trial in this cause, sua sponte. At no time prior to trial was defendant apprised of his right to a trial by jury in this matter nor did defendant ever execute the written waiver of jury trial required by Rule 23(a), F. R. Crim. Pro. At no time prior to trial did defendant indicate his knowledge of his right to a trial by jury nor his waiver of same. This being the case, defendant is entitled to a new trial. Jeopardy did not attach at the first trial on February 2, 1976 since defendant was not tried before the appropriate trier of fact. Serfaso v. U.S., 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975). Defendant has now indicated his desire to have this matter tried before a jury. Upon execution of the appropriate jury trial demand, this matter shall be transferred to the District Court for trial. It is so ordered.
Download the original document · Plain text (TXT) · Browse the archive · How this archive works
Original source: https://www.courtlistener.com/opinion/8675168/government-of-the-virgin-islands-v-colbourne/
SHA-256 4c16bf3f03808556fb2b281d26b082f1bbf374eb02cc2073dd1bbfeb6a177ed4
Re-using this document
judicial opinions are edicts of government, uncopyrightable by anyone including the courts; Harvard CAP restrictions expired with the March 2024 full release
Our description, tagging, arrangement, extracted text and machine transcripts are released under CC0 1.0. We assert nothing about the document itself.
Archive identifier LF-4c16bf3f0380
Document text
HOFFMAN, Judge ORDER The Court, having found this defendant guilty after trial on February 2,1976, now hereby orders a new trial in this cause, sua sponte. At no time prior to trial was defendant apprised of his right to a trial by jury in this matter nor did defendant ever execute the written waiver of jury trial required by Rule 23(a), F. R. Crim. Pro. At no time prior to trial did defendant indicate his knowledge of his right to a trial by jury nor his waiver of same. This being the case, defendant is entitled to a new trial. Jeopardy did not attach at the first trial on February 2, 1976 since defendant was not tried before the appropriate trier of fact. Serfaso v. U.S., 95 S.Ct. 1055 (1975). Defendant has now indicated his desire to have this matter tried before a jury. Upon execution of the appropriate jury trial demand, this matter shall be transferred to the District Court for trial. It is so ordered.