this is a case where the trial judge on her own motion declared a mistrial after the jury had been deliberating less than five hours and after a jury trial that lasted with the presentation of evidence and argument to the half days and after the jury deliberated in no declaring that they were at an impasse before a mistrial can be declared without violating the defendant's rate against double the jeopardy there has to be a manifest necessity the defense also has to say by the way are objecting in double jeopardy grounds this court in bangui itself recognized you have to what you have to do to ground a geisha and to protect your double jeopardy rights is to tell the judge that you declare a mistrial based on a jury deadlocked but that's to me implicate double jeopardy issues so as long as he didn't he didn't certainly didn't ask for a mistrial he never consented that a that the prosecutor  and then how the situation where a video of the defendant's dui arrest surfaced right after the trial had started and defense counsel said in that case you know i think this is deserving of a mistrial but we want to continue with this j are forcing the defendant not to mention this case to state witnesses who are child witnesses forcing the defendant to go through the expense and the entirety of the second trial where there's not a reasonable jury deadlocked until scrupulous exercise edition discretion leads to the conclusion that the ends in public justice would not be served by a continuation of the proceedings it's impossible to manage and hear that the trial judge could have decided that the jury was hopelessly deadlocked without even at a minimum giving them a print instruction but she did tell them earlier did she not to keep her through her bailiff to keep deliberating is that the same thing no imbued to reaching an agreement so it's not just a matter of gee maybe we think it's a good idea to reconsider they do need to not only reconsider their own opinion but to consider the opinions of the other jurors and the judge didn't offer them i mean if it were just a matter of keep deliberating ribena there would never be a need for a print instruction print struction is what tells the jurors what their obligation is in a particular trial and i think if you look at the saying we had been deliberate back and forth and we changed our approach back and forth so the jurors opinion was all right now we're not in agreement but that didn't foreclose the possibility that with for the deliberations the jurors could have come declare a strong i think improperly influenced the judge to refuse to give a permanent structure because chinese because she is she trying to justify her refusal to give a printed struction based on the fact that two hours earlier she had told the jury to keep delivering and that they still had to come to a verdict but at that time first of all she should have really told the parties about them and given them an opportunity at that time to they had and certainly there could have been any concern about possible exhaustion and pollution for the deliberations might have to had both sides were asking for the print instruction we should get the idea that she thought that there would be unhappy defendant's right to a verdict from the particular charge be a no that he has chosen when there are reasonable alternative step the judge could have you utilized and didn't utilize there was no manifest necessity certainly no impurities necessity be something where by somebody who knows something that would literally puts the other side in a trick bag because it means that the head they raise the flag healthy and ask for fringe structure on the trial court could have considered it the other side kind of comment about it and it would have been covered it would have been covered for purposes of perfecting on the issue on appeal it seems like you've been conflating confusing objection with a procedural who fall whereby the attorney failed to do something that he should've done that supposedly procedural fault or objection is just doesn't fit the facts of the issues unless you're going to tell us that there was something else this attorney should have done that did they didn't do or he didn't do that would have put both the state in a better position to respond to remediate whatever problem existed and give the trial court the opportunity to rule here  what other things other than an objection in the other things to the attorney to do is that he didn't do characterize it in a different way but to the extent that my church or a nation of this is that you need to do something more forceful to object based on what we read in the record i mean the judge did say so this is the second time i perceived information from the jury that there is in the us did the judge herself indicate that that was a factor in her deciding to get the print i don't know if it was the fact that the jury communicated to the judge that they were having her that was having difficulty or the fact that she had the new carpet communication with the jury that argued we tipped the scale and in the event we would ask your honour's to fi impartial and the defense attorney and that is a classic example i think of a call yes it is the defense attorney was given an opportunity to question the juror didn't want to question a juror asked speak to the press cuter came back into court and going to declare a mistrial she just said i'm declining to exercise either option and then call the jury out and declare a mistrial so i'm not sure more the defendant or it could have done when he said here's really the only two viable options