Why was John Stuart constitutional rights violated and wrongfully imprisoned through "double jeopardy" at his second trial? To the best of my knowledge and beliefs all of the allegations in this article are true and correct; and can be verified by researching the Maricopa County Superior Court record case number CR2008-106594 Arizona v. Stuart. This article is about a very specific instance and right; and will not present details of the other acts committed by zealot cops and prosecutor that committed over 200 felonies to convict Stuart. Suffice is to say the cops confessed under oath to intentionally destroying 116 pieces of evidence proving Stuart was innocent; and the prosecutor may have committed numerous acts of perjury to illegally obtain arrest warrants and falsely arrested and imprisoned a witness to the coerce her into committing perjury to help convict Stuart in the second trial. No, this article will not deal with those miscarriage of justice or other felonious acts; this article will only expose the recently discovered irrefutable evidence that Judge Sherry Stephens (of the Jodi Arias trial) may have omitted or altered the Court's (her Court's) record. This resulted in the unlawfully and unconstitutionally retrial of Stuart, in violation of the 5th Amendment in the U.S. Constitution and Article II Section 10 of the Arizona Constitution; commonly referred to as "double jeopardy". Stuart represented himself in the first trial; and was only "allowed" to do so after suing the judges and prosecutor in federal court under the U.S.C. Title 18 Section 1983- "Civil Rights". (This also begs the question why did the Judge and prosecutor not recuse themselves?) At the conclusion of the first trial jury was "dead locked" and could not reach a verdict. Pursuant to Stuart's request the judge issued an "Allen" charge to the jury; meaning they should keep deliberating. After further deliberation the jury remained dead locked. Here are the pertinent issues that any appellate lawyer can easily confirm; but written so anyone can understand them, "jeopardy" attaches to a trial once the jury is selected (termed "empaneled"). To remove jeopardy from a trial several conditions MUST be met, if there conditions are not met, jeopardy remains attached to the trial and cannot be removed later and meaning defendants cannot be retried. There conditions must all be met before the jury is released from service. In a case of a "hung jury"; as was the case in Stuart's first trial, normally jeopardy is automatically removed because neither the State nor the defense "objects" to the declaration by the judge (termed "sua sponte") of a mistrial. However, Stuart did object to the sua sponte declaration and the judge did state on the record that she would note the objection on the record. (See: FTR audio/video recording 11/18/2011, 2:55pm) http://youtu.be/rOsLZtXgjhY Pursuant to Arizona law (see: "manifest necessity") before Judge Stephens could sua sponte declare a mistrial she was required to overcome Stuart's objection by doing 3 things before she released the jurors. Those 3 things are: 1) Ask both sides for an alternative to the mistrial; and 2) allow them to argue their alternatives; and 3) carefully consider the alternatives. All 3 are by law "imperatives" that must be met; judges are also expected to do 4, not 2, "Allen" charges, especially in a 2 month long murder trial where the cops confessed to destroying 116 pieces of evidence in their custody. Rarely does the defense object to a mistrial for obvious reasons, so Stephens may have simply not known what she was required by law to do. Remember though, at 2:55pm she said she would "note the objection on [the Court's] record". Somehow, someway, like all the evidence proving that Stuart was innocent, the record was altered, and/or lost; and all evidence of Stuart's oral objection was lost. Even the Minute Entry for that date has no listing of the objection. How was this possible? (See: M.E. for 11/18/2011) Enter Stuart's daughter Patty and his good friends. After several attempts and months of waiting, they obtained a copy of the audio/video recording of that day of trial. Someone somewhere forgot to destroy all of the evidence for once, thank God! The simple fact is that the second trial to convict Stuart under the color of law was a hoax; it was unconstitutional; completely illegal; and a blatant violation of one of the most sacred foundations of American law that is a non-rebuttable statement of fact. The Minute Entry and Court Record authored by Judge Stephens has omitted Stuart's Objection Why would a sitting Judge do this knowing jeopardy remained attached to the first trial allow the second trial that cost the state hundreds of thousands of dollars proceed in an attempt to convict an innocent man? However, the aforementioned contradiction in the Court's Record and the FTR I believe proves someone "scrubbed" the trial record; and who is the only person who could benefit from such; who has the authority and opportunity to do so? Why did Judge Stephens blatantly violated a recent directive from the Arizona Supreme Court (see: Rules of Arizona Supreme Court Rule 42- Ethical Rule 3.8, October 2013) to prevent Stuart from proving his innocence after the 2nd trial. Why did Judge Stephens issue an order preventing the D.N.A. testing of the gun involved in the incident? Why was the D.N.A. testing not done before the both trials? Did the cops and prosecutor know Stuart was innocent and ordered the tests to be cancelled; which is also a blatant violation of protocols? The Arizona Supreme Court has ruled that any evidence that may prove a convicted person is innocent MUST be tested. Again, Judge Stephens' own conduct and decisions are part of the state's actions that violated civil rights Stuart and unjustly imprisoned him. Judge Stephens the prosecutor and the cops all had information the jury did not have and were well aware the D.N.A. tests of the gun may exonerate Stuart since they also know the G.S.R. tests of Stuart's hands performed within minutes after the incident occurred, showed "negative results", what ever happened to this test? Why is it missing? How is this possible in this day and age in the land of the free and justice for all? For those who are skeptical and do not believe judges may not always be impartial we need only remember the judges pension fund is vested in the prison system and the more convictions a judge gets the richer the judge gets. Ask yourself this simple question: How many people would be convicted if a judge was paid $50,000 for every acquittal? Stuart was imprisoned but not in an actual lawful trial he was retried in "double jeopardy" by an unlawful court driven by greed and bias. Who is to blame the Politician, judge, prosecutor and several cops "just doing my job" or we the people who stand by while the rule of law ignored and say nothing while the private prisons fill with the innocent. For decisions relevant to "manifest necessity" and "double jeopardy" research the following or Google Scholar: 1. Weston v. Kernan, 50 F.3d 633,673.39(9th Cir. 1993) 2. U.S. v. Chapman, 524 F.3d 1073, 1 82-84 (9th Cir 2008) 3. Arizona v. Washington, 434 U.S. 497, 505, 98 S. Ct. 824, L. Ed.2d 717, 728 (1978) 4. U.S. v. Alvarez-Morena, 637 F.3d 896, 899 (9th Cir 2011) 5. U.S. v. Dintz, 424 U.S. 600. 611-12 (1976)