With no explanation, chose the best option from "A", "B", "C" or "D". therefore, jeopardy did not attach to the verdict, and Appellant will be entitled to demand a 12-person jury on retrial if he is tried again for first-degree murder. The trial court found that Appellant would not have waived his right to a mistrial after a juror was removed following deliberations, and the State does not contest this fact. Appellant has proven that he would have terminated the trial before a verdict could have been rendered. Appellant and the State are now returned to status quo ante, and the State may seek to try Appellant for the capital crime of first-degree murder. Thus, no jeopardy attached to the proceeding or the verdict finding Appellant guilty of second-degree murder. See Richardson v. United States, 468 U.S. 317, 326, 104 S.Ct. 3081, 82 L.Ed.2d 242 (1984) (<HOLDING>); see also Ricketts v. Adamson, 483 U.S.

A: holding double jeopardy did not bar retrial where a jury could not render a verdict and a mistrial was granted
B: holding that since the mistrial met the manifest necessity requirement of our cases  the double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment  did not bar retrial under a valid indictment
C: holding that where the evidence offered by the state and admitted by the trial court  whether erroneously or not  would have been sufficient to sustain a guilty verdict the double jeopardy clause does not preclude retrial
D: holding that if defendant moved for or consented to mistrial retrial of defendant was not barred on double jeopardy grounds
A.