Hi.  Yes, that old conversation seemed to disappear.   Medeis removed it, citing a policy about "threats of harm", as you indicated.  I reviewed it, after this deletion.  The OP said something like "Geez, if I had to do life in prison, I'd rather die ... or I'd rather kill myself" (or some such).  Medeis took that as a suicide threat.  And did the "threat of harm" removal.  The policy cited states something like "take all threats seriously, don't assume that the threat is a joke".  I did not think it applied to that particular thread.  But, in picking and choosing my battles, this is not one of them.  Anyone  including me  might say "I'd rather die than serve life in prison".  In fact, most people would say that!  And I don't think that constitutes a threat of suicide.  Particularly  by the way  given the fact that I (or the OP) did not in fact receive a life sentence.  A silly deletion.

Back to double jeopardy.  We seem to disagree.  And I do not have the wherewithal to engage in legal research at the moment.

Yes, it is my understanding that when a new trial is ordered, everyone starts from scratch, from square one.  (I am sure we both recognize that many things can happen in an appeal.  They are rarely cut-and-dry; they are rarely black-and-white.  But, in the cut-and-dry case of "new trial is ordered", it is my belief that the prosecution starts with a clean slate and that nothing is "off limits".  I say this as a general rule.  Perhaps the death sentence has some "extra special": rules associated with it.  But, even that, I am suspect of.

In your case where the defendant is actually acquitted (on one charge), of course no retrial can occur (on that charge).  But, again, it depends on the appeal.  I am quite certain that the defense did not appeal the acquittal.  I am sure he appealed the "rest of the trial" which did not favor his client.  So, in other words, the charge acquitted (assault and battery, in your example) is not even under consideration in the appeal.  An appeal usually has several points being appealed (not just one).  And the justices review each point, one by one.  So, in your hypothetical case, the defense would not be "complaining about" (i.e., appealing) an acquittal that went in their favor.  They would be appealing the other things that transpired in the trial.  So, the final order of the justices might read "a new trial is ordered with respect to the robbery charge" (or some such).  

Now, do you have a case to cite that supports your contention? 

Thanks.