issue and holding that the 24 hour requirement is not an element of the crime but rather an affirmative defense). 5 . See Smalis v. Pennsylvania, 476 U.S. 140, 106 S.Ct. 1745, 90 L.Ed.2d 116 (1986) (finding that jeopardy attaches by virtue of the pre-verdict acquittal, barring any future consideration); United States v. Scott, 437 U.S. 82, 98, 98 S.Ct. 2187, 2197-98, 57 L.Ed.2d 65 (1978) (the effect of the trial court's acquittal as a bar to retrial is not affected even if the acquittal resulted “ ‘from erroneous evidentiary rulings or erroneous interpretations of governing legal principles’ ”); Government of Virgin Islands v. Blake, 944 F.Supp. 434 (D.V.I.1996); accord, Government of the Virgin Islands v. Christensen, 673 F.2d 713, 720-21 (3d Cir.1982) ((Sloviter, J., concurring) (<HOLDING>)). 6 . U.S. Const. amend. VI, made applicable
recognizing that any attributes of sovereignty the virgin islands has derive from the revised organic act holding that an act of legislature may be required to waive sovereign immunity recognizing the virgin islands legislature as the sovereign author of local jurisdictional law including section 39c even before passage of the 1984 amendments to the revised organic act sometimes referred to as the virgin islands constitution holding that there were at least four amendments submitted to the people in a single proposition and for that reason the amendments were not submitted in accordance with  the constitution and notwithstanding the action of the legislature in inserting them in the constitution are null and void and form no part of said constitution recognizing that virgin islands supreme court would essentially have the final word on the interpretation of local virgin islands law