[MacMattico]

I don't agree with you P-Marlowe. The whole problem, in this hypothetical, is that no ballot was ever cast, even though the jury forewomen was saying to the judge that she and the other jury's supported candidate x, they never cast their ballot.

Yes, I can see how the wise Latina would take that as a binding vote./s

[P-Marlowe]

I don't agree with you P-Marlowe.

It appears to me that you are a Proceduralist when it comes to Bill of Rights questions rather than an Originalist.

That is fine. That is where we disagree. I take the Constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy a little more literally and more in keeping with the original intent of the framers than you. Apparently you are in the majority.

Up to this point you have not bothered to even address the original intent of the framers in drafting the double jeopardy clause or the historical reasons why the framers felt it was necessary, but then neither did Justice Roberts.