I.
In review of a state decision under 28 U.S.C. § 2241,
when a federal appellate court must determine if
double jeopardy protection bars retrial after a mistrial
is granted over a defendant's objection based upon the
absence of a critical prosecution witness, does the
required strict scrutiny applied to the legal
determination of manifest necessity constrain in equal
or greater measure the deference universally accorded
a trial court's fact-finding.

II.
Whether in granting relief under 28 U.S.C. § 2241
the Fourth Circuit egregiously failed to apply clearly
established federal law as determined by this Court in
Arizona v. Washington and accord deference to the
state court's ruling finding manifest necessity for
mistrial when it resolved that omission of a reference
to consideration of alternatives in the court's oral
ruling made the ruling fatally insufficient even though
the record shows the state court did not act rashly in
granting a mistrial, but pursued a cautious approach
that included suspending the trial to allow a search for
the missing witness prior to considering and granting
the State's mistrial motion.

Whether the required strict scrutiny applied to the legal determination of manifest necessity constrains the deference accorded a trial court's fact-finding