The West Virginia Supreme Court recently ruled that a mistrial declared due to a COVID-19 outbreak during the trial of Kevin Scott Dickens was justified. This decision allows Dickens to be retried for voluntary manslaughter after his initial trial was interrupted by the illness of multiple trial participants. The ruling, filed on November 12, 2026, is significant as it addresses the intersection of public health and legal proceedings during the ongoing pandemic.

The case, State of West Virginia v. Kevin Scott Dickens (Docket No. 23-330), stems from an incident on December 30, 2021, where Dickens shot and killed Jeremy Peters after a confrontation at a bar. Initially charged with first-degree murder and wanton endangerment, Dickens's trial began on January 3, 2023. However, the proceedings were disrupted when several key individuals, including the defendant, jurors, and court staff, tested positive for COVID-19.

The circuit court declared a mistrial on January 17, 2023, citing the health crisis and the inability to continue the trial safely. Dickens's defense argued that the mistrial was unnecessary and that a brief recess could have sufficed. However, the court maintained that the situation posed a manifest necessity for declaring a mistrial, given the potential risks to jurors and the public.

Background

The parties involved in this case are the State of West Virginia, represented by Attorney General John B. McCuskey, and the defendant, Kevin Scott Dickens, represented by Matthew Brummond from the Public Defender Services. The dispute arose from Dickens's actions on December 30, 2021, when he shot Peters during a physical altercation at Terry’s Café. The incident was captured on surveillance footage, showing the moments leading up to the shooting.

Following the shooting, Dickens was indicted on charges of first-degree murder and wanton endangerment. His trial began in January 2023, but the proceedings were interrupted when multiple participants tested positive for COVID-19, leading the circuit court to declare a mistrial. Dickens's defense argued that the mistrial violated his rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause, which protects individuals from being tried twice for the same offense.

The Ruling

The West Virginia Supreme Court, led by Justice Kirkpatrick, affirmed the circuit court's decision to declare a mistrial. The court ruled that the COVID-19 outbreak created a manifest necessity for the mistrial, stating, "the ends of public justice would be defeated otherwise due to juror safety." The ruling emphasized that the trial court acted within its discretion, given the unprecedented circumstances posed by the pandemic.

Justice Kirkpatrick noted that the illness affected not just Dickens but also key participants in the trial, including jurors, court staff, and the judge. The court found that the trial could not safely continue, and the health risks warranted the mistrial. The ruling highlighted the importance of ensuring the safety of all involved in the judicial process while balancing the rights of the defendant.

Impact

This ruling has significant implications for future criminal trials, particularly in the context of public health emergencies. It establishes that courts have the discretion to declare mistrials when unforeseen circumstances, such as a pandemic, threaten the safety of participants. The decision reinforces the principle that public safety can take precedence over the desire for a speedy trial.

The ruling also clarifies the standards for determining manifest necessity in declaring a mistrial. It emphasizes that trial courts are best positioned to assess the impact of health crises on proceedings and that their decisions should be afforded deference. This case sets a precedent for how courts may handle similar situations in the future, ensuring that the judicial system can adapt to public health challenges.

What's Next

Following the Supreme Court's ruling, Dickens will face a retrial for voluntary manslaughter. The court's decision allows the state to present its case again without violating double jeopardy protections. Details regarding the scheduling of the retrial were not available in the court filing, but it is expected to proceed in the near future.