Hi Dr. Fessel. That is EXACTLY what I heard and how I interpreted HHJP's statement re ruling on mistrial motions. However, there were many here who disagreed. Did we ever get a lawyer type to answer that question?
Found this. Sounds like what we heard was right. He can look at the verdict and decide if it is fair or grant a mistrial.
TRIAL COURT DISCRETION
 We have previously held that trial courts have broad discretion when ruling on motions for new trial and motions for mistrial.   In Brown v. Estate of Stuckey, 749 So.2d 490 (Fla.1999), we stated:
To summarize, this Court has repeatedly held that the trial judge has broad discretion in ruling on a motion for a new trial on the grounds that the verdict is contrary to the manifest weight of the evidence.   A trial judge has the responsibility to draw on his [or her] talents, his [or her] knowledge, and his [or her] experience to keep the search for the truth in a proper channel, and the trial judge should always grant a motion for a new trial when the jury has been deceived as to the force and credibility of the evidence or has been influenced by considerations outside the record.   Cloud, 110 So.2d at 673.   The trial judge's discretion permits the grant of a new trial although it is not clear, obvious, and indisputable that the jury was wrong.   When a trial judge grants the motion for a new trial, he or she must articulate the reasons for the new trial in the order.
When reviewing the order granting a new trial, an appellate court must recognize the broad discretionary authority of the trial judge and apply the reasonableness test to determine whether the trial judge committed an abuse of discretion.   If an appellate court determines that reasonable persons could differ as to the propriety of the action taken by the trial court, there can be no finding of an abuse of discretion.   The fact that there may be substantial, competent evidence in the record to support the jury verdict does not necessarily demonstrate that the trial judge abused his or her discretion.
Id. at 497-98.   In Ed Ricke & Sons, Inc., we indicated that trial courts possess the same broad discretion in determining whether to reserve ruling on a motion for mistrial.   We recognized that a trial court's evaluation of judicial economy is an important factor to be considered by the trial court in exercising its broad discretion when ruling on a motion for mistrial.   Thus, when a motion for mistrial is made, it is within a trial court's discretion to determine whether it is the best use of judicial resources to let the case go to jury to see if the verdict cures the need for a new trial, or whether it is best to rule on the motion at an earlier stage in the proceedings.   But that call remains essentially for the trial court to make from its superior vantage point.   See Castlewood Int'l. Corp. v. LaFleur, 322 So.2d 520, 522 (Fla.1975) (Mere disagreement from an appellate perspective is insufficient as a matter of law to overturn a trial court on the need for a new trial.   The trial judge was in a much better position than an appellate court to pass on the ultimate correctness of the jury's verdict. ).
http://caselaw.findlaw.com/fl-supreme-court/1193568.html
