In State V

In State v. Fry, the defendant had been convicted of second-degree murder in the death of her small child due to alleged manual chest compression. The trial judge granted a joint request and ordered that the witnesses be sequestered until after their testimony had occurred. This meant that the witnesses who had yet to testify were not permitted in the courtroom and were not able to hear other witnesses' testimony. A medical doctor, who was a prosecution witness, discussed the case with the prosecution during a recess after the sequestration order had been in effect. The trial judge had previously ordered that the witnesses not discuss the case with anyone during the recess. Although the prosecutor admitted that he had discussed the doctor's testimony during the recess, the trial judge determined that the prosecutor had not done anything improperly in this case because the doctor was the prosecution's witness. The judge allowed the defense to cross-examine the doctor and allowed the defense to inquire into whether the doctor had been ordered not to discuss his testimony. It appeared that the doctor did discuss his testimony with the prosecutor, but that the witness physician was not prohibited from discussing the case with the prosecutor. Since the doctor was only precluded from discussing the case with other witnesses, the trial court concluded that there was no violation of the sequestration order. When the defendant asked for a mistrial because of the alleged violation of the sequestration order, the judge refused, and the case went to judgment. Under the circumstances of this case, did the medical doctor violate the sequestration order in a manner that would have required a mistrial? How sequestration orders work should be considered in formulating an answer to this question.