COA: 209513, Wayne CC: 96-008252.
On order of the Court, the application for leave to appeal the April 21, 2000 decision of the Court of Appeals is considered, and it is GRANTED. Further, because this Court is not required to accept the prosecutor's concession concerning the constitutional nature of any error that occurred in this case, the Court directs the parties to address whether the trial court's declaration of mistrial was based on manifest necessity. See People v Mehall, 454 Mich. 1 (1997). This argument shall set forth all factors that support or oppose a finding that defendant's mistrial was the result of manifest necessity. This Court also orders the parties to address: (1) whether defendant's claim of double jeopardy was forfeited and thus subject to review pursuant to the standards set forth in People v Carines, 460 Mich. 750 (1999); (2) whether defendant's failure to object to the declaration of mistrial constituted an implicit consent to the mistrial, such that no error occurred; (3) the appropriate remedy where a trial court's declaration of mistrial occurs within the context of a record that is inadequate regarding whether manifest necessity existed; (4) whether the inadequacy of a record regarding whether manifest necessity existed is the equivalent of an absence of manifest necessity; (5) the extent to which the law might be clarified concerning the presence or lack of presence of manifest necessity; and (6) the appropriate level of deference appellate courts should attach to a trial court's determination of manifest necessity. The Court invites briefs amicus curiae from the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan and the State Appellate Defender Office. Other persons or groups interested in the determination of these questions may move the Court for permission to file briefs amicus curiae.