YOUNGSTOWN — A document filed Friday in the Myckle J. Hughes aggravated murder case suggests that an outburst by individuals who came to watch the trial could be a reason the trial was declared a mistrial before it even began.

Mahoning County Prosecutor Paul Gains said late Tuesday he believes the outburst is the reason for the mistrial.

Another document filed Friday suggests that the reasons have more to do with a witness being unable to testify. The judge in charge of the case, John Durkin of Mahoning County Common Pleas Court, said Tuesday he will not comment on the reason for the mistrial.

Hughes, 23, of Sixth Street in Campbell, faces charges of murder, aggravated murder and aggravated robbery. He is accused of killing recent Chaney graduate Sean Bell, 18, on Oak Street Extension Aug. 21, 2018. Police initially responded to the scene of a car accident but found Bell’s body with gunshot wounds inside the vehicle.

The trial was expected to start Sept. 16, after 12 jurors and two alternates were selected, but it did not start then. None of the parties were willing to discuss the reason why until Gains said it was because a witness was unable make it to the courthouse and possibly because of an outburst at the courthouse.

On Friday, prosecutors filed a motion asking Durkin to allow an out-of-state witness who could not come to the courthouse to testify remotely.

In that scenario, the witness would testify from outside of Ohio with questioning by prosecutors and defense attorneys. Prosecutors wanted the witness to testify on Skype, Zoom or other videoconferencing application, according to a filing by Assistant Prosecutor Dawn Cantalamessa.

But a Friday filing by Thomas Zena, one of Hughes’ lawyers, stated there was another problem Wednesday that involved an outburst by citizens who came to watch the trial Wednesday.

Zena’s filing stated that prosecutors told Durkin Wednesday morning — just before opening statements that the witness could not come to the trial.

So the judge sent the jurors home for the day, telling them to return the following Monday.

As the jurors were leaving the courthouse, individuals who had come to watch the trial “became irate” when prosecutors told them of the postphonement. Deputies escorted the irate citizens from the courthouse.

Some of the angry citizens yelled things some of the jurors could hear, Zena stated. Zena mentioned these details in asking Durkin to questioning each of the jurors individually before the trial could resume on Monday.

Gains said Tuesday: “I believe jurors witnessed the outburst, and it affected their ability to be fair jurors.”

Zena wanted the judge to ask each juror if he or she could still serve as an impartial juror after hearing the angry remarks.

Judge Durkin did not file a written response to either Zena’s request for individual questioning or Cantalamessa’s request for remote testimony.

Instead, on Monday Durkin postoned the trial again, this time declaring a mistrial and saying the trial will be held Nov. 9 with new jurors.

When asked Tuesday for the reason for the mistrial, the judge said he cannot discuss a “pending case.”