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
citation_a.identifier: 400 U.S. 490, 490
citation_a.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_a.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).
citation_b.signal: see also
citation_b.identifier: 730 F.2d 977, 977
citation_b.parenthetical: mistrial improper although not requested or desired by government and declared solely because of court's possible conflict with defense position
citation_b.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).