dismissed the indictment against the three defendants gars got sent and said right based on its application of a novel and self created standard of manifest necessity that look to the government's decision making when the says it seems to me that the court actually need a doubleton judge turn to originally found there was or manifest necessity for a mistrial and then found that the government in addition had to meet this need th unnecessarily struggling fighting judge balance question because it doesn't make any difference whether we say that the manifest necessity for the mistrial was the illness of the jurors wally world the government's with rulings of consent because if it's the winer that only makes the question is there something about the government's withholding of consent that is will permit me let me put another fact on the table that i think will put church violence question in a proper factual right i have the same question judge  after all of this happened it's only because of the government processes that took so long so but i do think the government's reasons were reasonably necessary this was a poor defendant conspiracy but i would also add that there is a concern about fairness to the government and the fact is it is true that the courts are mostly working out whether the government has been in the defense case but the defense has now seen the government's case twice it saw the original used to sell you a score in the way very that ruling on his speech trial clock and then just spell out for me a little bit at that point if the government decided to challenge judge storerooms decision to is not something that we would be likely to appeal if it was dismissed for one of prosecution thank you thank you agree that we're required to make is whether that is manifest necessity for what the district court's declaration of the of the mistrial i think that's what the supreme court has told us i'm not saying that the court has also said that in addition to the basic manifest injustice inquiry the if that if that that if that mistrial is is brought about by some improper action on the government's part then we know that this is this a different outcome you're right with the government provokes t it but none of us are saying that the government's reason doesn't matter all right we're looking at a record with the district court has made a factual finding of actual find that the government was right that's the problem there is a combination of two things they didn't just simply say we want to go forward in an un sever trial they want to go forward and sever trial with twelve jurors withholding of consent to declare a mistrial even we have the defendant wanted to go forward in the in the end even with the government would have consented in proportion of appeal sort of review those they should have a problem with the parent they should have no problem with the integrity of the jury or the composition of the jury it should be something that goes to the interest of justice we should not be we like our chances better that there shouldn't be any difference here b and in essence what the government is arguing is that there is a different double jeopardy clause has a different meaning at twelve and under twelve at twelve the defendant's value right is paramount the defendant should control to the greatest extent possible whether or not they get to complete their corral before the impaneled jury and the court has to find extraordinary circumstances and cases the crown is in the context of rule twenty three dollars where the clearest most to do with respect to the manifest necessity is consider alternatives severance figure stand to it when the court is considering alternatives the court here did not