No legal verdict, no double jeopardy.
I can say I’m going to vote for candidate x all I want, but if I don’t actually go to the polling place and cast a legal ballot, it doesn’t count.
The same applies to juries. A poll of jurors in the course of deliberations without reaching a lawful verdict is just opinion. Procedures matter. Or would you like to have someone convicted on an informal straw poll instead of following the proper procedure?
The law in question may or may not be a good, or even a just law, but that is not the question. The question is does the law in question violate the right against double jeopardy? The answer is no, it may be a procedural technicality but it is a real distinction.
Precisely. As stated in an earlier post, "the forewoman told the judge...", doesn't cut it.
Actually a more apropos analogy would be that you went to the polling place and you did cast your vote for president, but the Secretary of State refused to count your vote because you didn't vote for a school board candidate and your ballot was invalid because you left part of your ballot blank.
Here the jury did cast their vote on the murder charges. The voted to acquit. They left the ballot blank on the manslaughter charges.