Can the Court Declare a Mistrial Without the Defendant’s Consent? A Look at Elena Gaston v. Commonwealth, SJC-13660 (2025)
In the recent Massachusetts Supreme Judicial Court decision of Elena Gaston v. Commonwealth, SJC-13660 (2025), the Commonwealth’s highest court delivered a significant ruling on mistrials, double jeopardy, and the constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel. The case is a sobering reminder for defense attorneys and criminal defendants alike that poor strategic choices at trial—even if made with good intentions—can derail a case and potentially justify retrial, even over a defendant’s objection.
This post breaks down the facts, procedural twists, and legal holdings in the Gaston case, and offers insight into what it means for defendants facing serious charges like sex trafficking, money laundering, and prostitution in Massachusetts.
Background: Who Is Elena Gaston and What Was She Charged With?
Elena Gaston was indicted in Massachusetts on several serious charges, including:
Trafficking of persons for sexual servitude (G.L. c. 265, § 50),
Conspiracy to commit sex trafficking (G.L. c. 274, § 7),
Deriving support from prostitution (G.L. c. 272, § 7), and
Money laundering (G.L. c. 267A, § 2).
The Commonwealth alleged that Gaston operated an escort service, in which women were sent on “dates” with male clients. Despite attempts to present the business as legitimate, the prosecution claimed the true purpose was to arrange commercial sexual encounters for money—making it a classic sex trafficking operation under Massachusetts law.
A Plea Deal Gone Awry
On the day trial was set to begin, the parties reached a plea agreement: the Commonwealth would dismiss the sex trafficking count, and Gaston would plead guilty to the remaining charges in exchange for a sentence of 2–3 years in prison followed by probation.
But during the plea colloquy—a required step to ensure that a guilty plea is knowing, voluntary, and supported by a factual basis—Gaston balked. When asked if the prosecution’s summary of facts was true, she responded, “Not wholly.” Even after speaking with her attorney, she repeatedly refused to admit that she knowingly arranged for sex acts.
Ultimately, the judge halted the plea hearing, stating, “I think we're going to proceed to trial.”
Trial Begins: A Defense Strategy That Backfires
After a failed plea agreement, trial commenced two days later. But what happened next proved even more unusual—and ultimately led to the appeal.
In his opening statement, Gaston’s defense attorney essentially conceded her guilt. He admitted that she knowingly arranged sexual services for money, but urged the jury to reject the prosecution’s moral framing of the case. He emphasized that Gaston was no “pimp,” that the women worked voluntarily, and that the business empowered women and offered protection.
He even referenced the Supreme Court’s Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health decision, suggesting that prosecuting Gaston for her role in a woman-run escort service was hypocritical and unjust. The message: the law might say she’s guilty, but the jury should consider broader principles about female autonomy and fairness.
The Prosecution Objects: Motion for Mistrial
After the jury heard this impassioned opening, the Commonwealth promptly moved for a mistrial, arguing that the defense’s statements were improper and designed to encourage jury nullification—the practice of asking jurors to ignore the law and acquit for moral or political reasons.
Rather than declare a mistrial immediately, the judge opted for a strong curative instruction, telling the jury to ignore any arguments not based on the law or the elements of the charged offenses.
The trial proceeded, and the Commonwealth presented testimony from three former escorts. The defense focused on showing that the women were not coerced and that Gaston provided a safer alternative to street-level prostitution.
But concerns about defense counsel’s strategy continued to mount.
Ineffective Assistance? Judge Raises Concerns
By the end of the first day of testimony, the trial judge expressed serious concerns that defense counsel’s opening had prejudiced the trial beyond repair. He noted that the opening had undercut any viable defense, especially the argument that Gaston lacked knowledge of the sexual activity—a position she had taken just days earlier during the failed plea colloquy.
Worse, it became clear that defense counsel had not consulted Gaston before delivering the opening statement. She appeared confused and upset in court, and later told the judge that she wasn’t sure how to proceed. Her lawyer failed to explain what alternative defense remained available.
At that point, the judge declared a mistrial, citing a “manifest necessity” based on defense counsel’s ineffective assistance and the likelihood of a future reversal on appeal.
Motion to Dismiss on Double Jeopardy Grounds
Gaston, now represented by new counsel, moved to dismiss the charges, arguing that a retrial would violate her constitutional protection against double jeopardy. That motion was denied by the trial judge, and the SJC ultimately upheld the decision.
Legal Issue: Was the Mistrial Proper?
The central question before the SJC was whether the trial judge abused his discretion by declaring a mistrial over the defendant’s objection. The court acknowledged the general rule: if a trial ends in a mistrial over the defendant’s objection, double jeopardy protections may bar retrial unless there was a “manifest necessity.”
Here, the court found that the trial judge had acted thoughtfully and cautiously:
He gave both parties multiple opportunities to be heard.
He explored alternatives, including a strong curative instruction.
He solicited the defendant’s input, giving her a chance to decide whether to proceed.
Only after the defendant expressed uncertainty, and the defense attorney failed to identify a coherent trial strategy, did the judge declare a mistrial.
The SJC concluded that there was no abuse of discretion, and therefore no double jeopardy violation.
Why This Case Matters to Massachusetts Criminal Defendants
If you’re facing criminal charges in Massachusetts—particularly serious offenses like sex trafficking or conspiracy—it’s crucial to understand the legal doctrines at play in Gaston. Here are the key takeaways:
1. Trial Strategy Must Be Constitutionally Sound
Defense attorneys have wide latitude in how they defend a case, but there are limits. A strategy that effectively asks the jury to nullify the law—instead of focusing on the legal elements of the crime—is risky and may constitute ineffective assistance of counsel.
2. Judges Can Declare a Mistrial—Even Over Objection
While defendants generally have a right to see their trial through to a verdict, that right is not absolute. If defense counsel’s conduct creates a constitutional defect in the proceeding, and no reasonable alternative exists, a judge can declare a mistrial based on manifest necessity—and the case can be retried.
3. Defendant Silence Doesn’t Equal Consent
The SJC rejected the idea that Gaston’s silence or hesitation meant she approved of her attorney’s approach. In fact, her reaction in court—confusion, apparent distress, and statements like “that’s why I hired [him]”—showed that she had not been consulted and had not knowingly agreed to the strategy.
4. Jury Nullification Is Not a Defense
Massachusetts law is clear: jurors must follow the law as instructed by the judge. Arguments urging them to acquit on moral or political grounds—no matter how passionately delivered—can backfire and lead to corrective measures, including curative instructions or mistrials.
Boston Criminal Defense Insight: Protecting Your Right to a Fair Trial
At our Boston criminal defense firm, we understand that every client deserves a vigorous and constitutionally sound defense. The Gaston case is a powerful illustration of what can go wrong when strategy overshadows substance, and when a lawyer’s actions compromise a client’s legal defenses.
Sex trafficking, money laundering, and conspiracy charges carry severe consequences under Massachusetts law. The right lawyer must not only know the law but must also protect your constitutional rights, consult with you at every stage, and avoid strategies that could undermine your defense or trigger retrials.
What Should You Do If Your Lawyer Missteps at Trial?
If you believe that your criminal defense attorney made serious errors in your case—especially without consulting you—you may have grounds for relief. In some cases, this can support a claim of ineffective assistance of counsel, which may result in reversal of a conviction or even dismissal.
If you're already in the middle of a trial and concerned about your representation, it's not too late to seek help. A knowledgeable Boston criminal defense lawyer can help assess your situation and protect your rights.
Final Thoughts: A Cautionary Tale
Elena Gaston v. Commonwealth is more than a legal decision—it’s a cautionary tale about the importance of client-centered, constitutionally sound advocacy in serious criminal trials. In the end, the SJC affirmed the principle that mistrials can be appropriate—even over the defendant’s objection—when the fairness of the trial has been compromised beyond repair.
But the case also affirms something else: that Massachusetts courts take the integrity of the trial process seriously and will act when necessary to ensure that justice is done.
If you or someone you love is facing criminal charges in the Boston area, don’t leave your future to chance. Contact our office today for a confidential consultation.