Double-jeopardy-challenge

QUESTION PRESENTED On federal habeas review, a divided panel of the Ninth Circuit rejected Joseph Stanley’s double jeopardy challenge to his retrial, holding that by failing to object to comments by the state trial judge leading up to an unnecessary mistrial, Stanley’s lawyer had “implied consent” to it. In doing so, the panel held it irrelevant that state law at the time told judges and attorneys alike that “no consent ... may ... be implied” even from an express declaration of a mistrial. People v. Compton, 6 Cal.3d 55, 63 (1971). Did the majority’s decision to ignore the Catch-22 depart so far from judicial norms as to call for an exercise of this Court’s discretion?