Whether the trial court's declaration of a mistrial was supported by manifest necessity

QUESTIONS PRESENTED The Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment provides that no person shall “be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” Included in double jeopardy is the constitutional protection of the Defendant “to have his trial completed by a particular tribunal.” Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 503 (1978). However, the right to have one’s trial completed by a particular tribunal is not absolute. The declaration of a mistrial does not bar retrial if the mistrial is supported by “manifest necessity.” In reviewing a trial court’s determination of manifest necessity, this Court established a sliding scale of review based on the cause of the mistrial. Washington, 434 U.S. at 508-09. The questions presented in this case are: 1. Whether this Court should adopt an objectively reasonable approach when evaluating whether the trial court’s declaration of a mistrial was supported by manifest necessity and resolve the split in the approaches as to the level of scrutiny utilized among the First, Fourth, and Sixth Circuits. 2. Whether the standard of review of a trial court’s determination of manifest necessity for a mistrial under Arizona v. Washinton, 434 U.S. 497, 508-09 (1978), requires a higher level of scrutiny than the most relaxed scrutiny utilized by the Sixth Circuit in this case, when the mistrial is in part based on ii the absence of critical prosecution evidence, as would be determined in the Fourth Circuit under Seay v. Connor, 927 F.3d 776 (4th Cir. 2019).