Therein, jeopardy did not attach. As jeopardy did not attach, it necessarily follows that state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy were not violated. Moreover, defendants' argument that prosecutorial misconduct in this action alone warrants a finding that reinstatement of charges against them constitutes double jeopardy, is without merit. Again, as there has been no trial on the merits in the present case, jeopardy has not attached. Moreover, the State's bad faith in seeking to admit documents and information obtained during settlement negotiations between defendants and the Attorney General's Office, and pretrial publicity sought in contravention with representations of the District Attorney's Office, cannot be said to have been intended to provoke a mistrial.
Defendants arguments to the contrary are unpersuasive.
In light of our finding that the State's appeal to the superior court did not violate state and federal prohibitions against double jeopardy, defendants' argument that the State's appeal was erroneously heard by the superior court without a proper showing by the State that said appeal was not prohibited by the double jeopardy clause, is moot. In light of the foregoing, the decision of the superior court is reversed, and the matter remanded to the superior court for de novo review as to defendants' motions to dismiss the charges against each of them. Reversed and remanded.