Whether implied consent is valid consent to waive double jeopardy protections, and if so, what qualifies as implied consent?

QUESTION PRESENTED The double jeopardy clause prevents the retrial of a criminal case after mistrial unless the defendant consents or if the mistrial was for manifest necessity. Donavan White Owl did not consent to the mistrial however the Eighth Circuit determined, on an issue of apparent first impression, that a district court may convene a new trial after a mistrial without violating double jeopardy where a defendant impliedly consents to the mistrial and that Mr. White Owl’s consent was implied. The question presented is whether implied consent is valid consent to waive double jeopardy protections and if it is what qualifies as implied consent?