context: In order to invoke the "double jeopardy bar," a defendant need not demonstrate that the declaration of a mistrial prejudiced him in any way other than infringement on the "valued right" to have the empaneled tribunal decide his cause.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 973 F.2d 255, 255
citation_a.parenthetical: mistrial improper even when not requested or desired by government and only declared because of "the interest of the defendant"
citation_a.sentence: See also United States v. Council, 973 F.2d at 255 (mistrial improper even when not requested or desired by government and only declared because of “the interest of the defendant”); Sartori 730 F.2d at 977 (mistrial improper although not requested or desired by government and declared solely because of court’s possible conflict with defense position).
citation_b.signal: see
citation_b.identifier: 91 S.Ct. 559, 559
citation_b.parenthetical: majority holds declaration of mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity, although, in words of the dissent, "the mistrial was not requested by the prosecutor, and there is not the slightest indication that he desired it to occur."
citation_b.sentence: See Jorn, 400 U.S. at 490, 91 S.Ct. at 559 (majority holds declaration of mistrial was not supported by manifest necessity, although, in words of the dissent, “the mistrial was not requested by the prosecutor, and there is not the slightest indication that he desired it to occur.”) (Stewart, J., dissenting).