itself.’ ... Structural error usually requires no showing of prejudice by the defendant and may invalidate the first proceeding. If the first proceeding is invalid or void, then no jeopardy attaches to those proceedings. Ex parte McCombs, 24 So.3d 1175, 1178 (Ala.Ct.Crim.App.2009) (quoting United States v. Gonzalez-Lopez, 548 U.S. 140, 126 S.Ct. 2557, 165 L.Ed.2d 409 (2006) (citations omitted)). Here, a structural error occurred because Appellant successfully demonstrated he would not have authorized an 11-person jury to return a verdict. No specific showing of prejudice was required because, as explained i dants who successfully obtain a mistrial or successfully move to vacate their pleas and are then returned to their original position. See Ricketts, 483 U.S. at 11, 107 S.Ct. 2680 (<HOLDING>). In Ricketts, the Court noted its prior
recognizing that the expectation of finality and tranquility is an interest protected by the prohibition on double jeopardy holding that the constitutional protection against double jeopardy may be waived pursuant to a bargainedfor plea holding that the government may appeal a postverdict ruling without violating double jeopardy where the appeal does not result in a new trial holding that the government could appeal a criminal sentence without violating the double jeopardy clause when congress expressly authorized such an appeal holding that where a plea agreement is vacated the parties can be returned to their original position without violating the prohibition against double jeopardy