(1) DOES THE OKLAHOMA COURT OF CRIMINAL APPEALS' DECISION IN THE INSTANT CASE CONTRADICT THE DECISION OF THE UNITED STATES COURT OF THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA, UPHELD BY THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE NINTH CIRCUIT, IN WESTON V. KERNAN, 50 F.3d 633, THEREBY WITHHOLDING FROM ITS' CITIZENS THE EQUAL PROTECTION OF THE LAW, AS OUTLINED BY THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION AMENDMENT XIV?

(A)- UPON INTERJECTION OF PREJUDICIAL INFORMATION, BY MEANS OF A SINGULAR, UNSOLICITED OUTBURST BY A PROSECUTORIAL WITNESS IN THE TRIAL COURT, HAS THE MANIFEST NECESSITY STANDARD BEEN SATISFIED WHEN THE STATE OBJECTS TO THE DEFENDANT'S MOTION FOR MISTRIAL AND THE DISTRICT COURT MAKES NO EXPLICIT CONSIDERATION OF ANY ALTERNATIVES?

(B)- WHEN A DEFENDANT IN A STATE CRIMINAL PROCEEDING MOTIONS FOR A MISTRIAL, UPON EVIDENTIARY ERROR, ASSERTS THAT SAID MOTION IS BEING LIMITED TO A MISTRIAL WITH PREJUDICE, AND SUBSEQUENTLY OBJECTS TO THE TRIAL COURTS' RULING OF A MISTRIAL WITHOUT PREJUDICE, HAS HE ULTIMATELY CONSENTED, WHEREBY EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, TO THE ISSUE OF GRANTING A MISTRIAL?

(C)- DID JEOPARDY ATTACH IN THE TRIAL OF A CRIMINAL CASE, WHERE THE DEFENDANT MOTIONED FOR A MISTRIAL, FOLLOWING THE INJECTION OF INADMISSIBLE TESTIMONY, BUT SUBSEQUENTLY OBJECTED TO THE TRIAL COURTS' RULING OF A MISTRIAL ON THE GROUNDS OF PREJUDICE, ABSENT A SHOWING OF MANIFEST NECESSITY BY THE STATE, THEREBY BARRING FURTHER PROSECUTION OF THE SAME DEFENDANT ON THE CONCERNED CHARGES UNDER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE OF THE FIFTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION AND ARTICLE II § 21 OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSTITUTION?

(2) IS THE INTRODUCTION OF EVIDENCE AT A SECOND TRIAL, THE SAME WHICH WAS DEEMED PREJUDICIAL AT DEFENDANT'S FIRST TRIAL IN THE SAME DISTRICT COURT, CASE, AND ON THE SAME CHARGES BUT AT THE DISCRETION OF A DIFFERENT JUDGE, A VIOLATION OF THE CONSTITUTIONAL RIGHT NOT TO BE PLACED IN DOUBLE JEOPARDY, UNDER THE EFFECT OF COLLATERAL ESTOPPEL?

Does the Oklahoma Court of Criminal Appeals' decision contradict the Ninth Circuit's ruling in Weston v. Kernan, thereby violating equal protection under the Fourteenth Amendment?