I. WHETHER THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (see US Const, Am V and Const 1963, art
18 15) DID NOT APPLY IN THIS CASE TO PROTECT THE DEFENDANT AGAINST A
SECOND PROSECUTION FOR THE SAME OFFENSE AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT
INITIALLY DECLARED THE DEFENDANT INNOCENT AND ENTERED AN ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL ON THE GROUNDS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AFTER THE
MICHIGAN COURT OF APPEALS TWICE AFFIRMED THE ACQUITTAL UNDER THE
DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE?

II. WHETHER THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT THE
PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (see US Const, Am V and Const 1963, art
1§ 15) WHICH ALSO INCLUDED SUPPLEMENTAL FINDINGS BARRED FOLLOWING A
REVERSAL, DID NOT APPLY TO THIS CASE FOR WHETHER THE CIRCUIT COURT
DETERMINED THAT THE PROSECUTION FAILED TO PUT FORWARD EVIDENCE OF A
LAWFUL ARREST AFTER THE CIRCUIT COURT INITIALLY DECLARED THE
DEFENDANT INNOCENT AND ENTERED AN ORDER OF ACQUITTAL ON THE
GROUNDS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE AND AFTER THE MICHIGAN COURT OF
APPEALS TWICE AFFIRMED THE ACQUITTAL UNDER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY
CLAUSE?

III. WHETHER THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
THE CIRCUIT COURT'S ACQUITTAL CAN BE APPEALED OR OVERTURNED ON A
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION UNDER MCR 7.114(D) AND MCR 2.119(F) WHEN
THE PROHIBITION AGAINST DOUBLE JEOPARDY (SEE US CONST, AM V AND
CONST 1963, ART 1§ 15) APPLIES IN THIS CASE AND CURRENTLY PROHIBITS
APPEALS OF ACQUITTALS BY A HIGHER COURT ON APPEAL OR ON
RECONSIDERATION BY THE SAME COURT WHICH ISSUED IT FOR PURPOSES OF
THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE?

IV. WHETHER THE MICHIGAN SUPREME COURT ERRED IN CONCLUDING THAT
THE CIRCUIT COURT PROPERLY EXERCISED ITS AUTHORITY UNDER MCR 7.114(D)
AND MCR 2.119(F), WHEN IT RECONSIDERED AND REVERSED ITS OWN ORDER OF
ACQUITTAL, THUS ELIMINATING DOUBLE JEOPARDY CONCERNS RELATED TO ITS
PRIOR DETERMINATION OF THE DEFENDANT'S INNOCENCE IN ITS DECEMBER 26,
2018 ACQUITTAL ON THE GROUNDS OF INSUFFICIENT EVIDENCE FOR PURPOSES
OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE?

Whether the Michigan Supreme Court erred in concluding that the prohibition against double jeopardy did not apply in this case