Did the trial court exceed its jurisdiction in violation of the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause by trying Mr. Dizzley a second time for the crime of murder and imposing a sentence on him after discharging his jury in his first trial on the grounds that the prosecution failed to meet the 'burden of proof' to convict him?

Mr. Dizzley contends that the trial court exceeded its jurisdiction by imposing a sentence on him in violation of the Fifth Amendment ’s Double Jeopardy Clause. Mr. Dizzley was tried for the crime of murder in a jury trial in 2012 in Georgetown South Carolina. After only three to four hours of deliberations the jury foreman sent a note that they could not reach a unanimous decision, Judge Baxley then spontaneously discharged Mr. Dizzley's jury on the grounds that his decision was based on a “strong message to the prosecution that they are unable to meet the “burden of proof ” to the extent that they can bring back a unanimous verdict. ” However, instead of entering a verdict of acquittal, Judge Baxley declared a mistrial and Mr. Dizzley was tried again two years later in 2014 for the same offense and unlawfully convicted and sentenced to 35 years in the South Carolina Department of Corrections. The case thus presents the following question. Did the trial court exceed its jurisdiction in violation of the Fifth Amendment ’s Double Jeopardy Clause by trying Mr. Dizzley a second time for the crime of murder and imposing a sentence on him after discharging his jury in his first trial on the grounds that the prosecution failed to meet the “burden of proof ” to convict him? Can The United States Supreme Court use its discretionary powers as leverage simply choosing not to adjudicate a case pursuant to an illegal incarceration and strictly apply Supreme Court procedural rules to turn a “blind eye” to condone, and to authorize the continued unlawful imprisonment of an American citizen, in violation of his Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendment rights?