this point, we need not decide whether "manifest necessity” would have permitted the trial court to declare a mistrial without a motion by the defense. But see United States v. Burgess, No. 89-2391, 1991 U.S.App. Lexis 8491, at *10 (6th Cir. Apr. 29, 1991) (concluding that a defendant’s double jeopardy rights were not violated when the second mistrial was the result of his incompetence to stand trial); Mays v. Smith, No. 06C0486, 2007 WL 2257572 at *3, 2007 U.S. Dist. Lexis 56978, at *9 (E.D.Wis. Aug. 3, 2007) (citing Hamm v. Jabe, supra note 2, 706 F.2d at 767-68) (stating that "where there is a question as to a defendant’s competency and the defendant has behaved violently, a judge’s decision to declare a mistrial will be upheld”); State v. Standing Soldier, 299 N.W.2d 568 (S.D.1980)
holding that defendant waived double jeopardy claim by obtaining severance of charges at first trial holding the statutory burden is on the defendant to prove he is incompetent to stand trial holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial when defendant was not consulted or present holding that if defendant moved for or consented to mistrial retrial of defendant was not barred on double jeopardy grounds holding that defense counsel validly waived a double jeopardy claim by assenting to a mistrial after defendant was found incompetent to stand trial in the midst of trial