Did the prosecutor engage in intentional misconduct in a previous trial which goaded the defense into moving for a mistrial, which barred retrial in this case pursuant to double jeopardy?

DID THE PROSECUTOR ENGAGED IN INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT IN A PREVIOUS TRIAL WHICH GOATED THE DEFENSE INTO MOVING FOR A MISTRIAL, WHICH BARRED RETRIAL IN THIS CASE PURSUANT TO DOUBLE JEOPARDY? US CONST, AMS V, XIV; MICH. CONST, 1963, ART 1, §§ 15, 17, 20.I. II. WAS PETITIONER DENIED A FAIR TRIAL ON THE GROUND OF JUROR MISCONDUCT, WHERE A DELIBERATING JUROR WAS EXPOSED TO EXTRANEOUS INFLUENCES, WHICH PROBABILITY THAT IT COULD HAVE AFFECTED THE JURYS VERDICT, AND THE JUDGE ABUSED HER DISCRETION BY ALLOWING THE JUROR TO CONTINUE TO DELIBERATE WITH THE OTHER JURORS WITHOUT HOLDING A HEARING PURSUANT TO REMMER V UNITED STATES, 347 U.S. 227 (1954)? US CONST, AMS V, VI, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §§ 17, 20?A SUBSTANTIAL CREATED WAS PETITIONER DENIED DUE PROCESS OF LAW WHEN HE WAS CONVICTED ON THE BASIS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE? US CONST, AMS V, XIV; CONST, 1963, ART. 1, §§ 17, 20?III. i