State v. Ward

My dissatisfaction with the majority rests on its discussion of the double jeopardy principles presented by this case.1 The defendant’s double jeopardy claim was grounded on two points: first, that there was no showing of a manifest necessity for the judge to declare a mistrial because of the juror’s ambiguous remarks, and second, that there was no meaningful effort to explore reasonable alternatives to the mistrial. These are two central tenets of our double jeopardy law. See Keller v. Ferguson, 177 W.Va. 616, 366 S.E.2d 406 (1987); Porter v. Ferguson, 174 W.Va. 253, 324 S.E.2d 397 (1984).…