Question not identified.

No question identified. : QUESTION^) PRESENTED 1. Whether reasonable jurists determine that the trial court erred in both concluding retroactively that a mistrial had been intended and in retroactively granting a mistrial as neither party had requested a mistrial, the court had not explored possible remedies necessitated by the withdrawal of counsel on the day of trial, and the retroactive granting of a mistrial sua sponie or ordering a recess of the trial, and the retroactive granting of a mistrial denied the parties an opportunity to object to a mistrial. This is specifically prohibited as it violates both the United States Constitution and the Louisiana Constitution of 1974. 2. Whether reasonable jurist would debate that the second trial held in September 2023, violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the United States Constitution because Jeopardy had previously been attached on January 14, 2020, once the jury had been selected and sworn in. The dismissal of that jury on January 21, 2020, was not consented to by Mr. Jackson either expressly or impliedly, and he specifically opposed counsel's withdrawal from the case, which was the basis for the court dismissing the.