endangerment charges should be dismissed, but actively waived them. Forfeiture is distinct from waiver because “[w]hen a legal rule has been waived, an appeal based upon the nonadherence to that legal principle is precluded,” but “[i]f, however, the correct application of the rule merely was ‘forfeited,’ then an appellate court may nevertheless review for plain error.” Murrell v. People, 54 V.I. 338, 361 (V.I. 2010) (quoting Gov’t of the V.I. v. Rosa, 399 F.3d 283, 290 (3d Cir. 2005)). To determine whether a claim has been forfeited or waived, this Court primarily looks to whether the party “was aware of the relinquished or abandoned right.” Id. at 362 (quoting Rosa, 399 F.3d at 291). Thus, simply failing to object or raise an issue will typically result in a forfe th Cir. 1978) (<HOLDING>); Nero v. District of Columbia, 936 A.2d 310,
holding that defendant did not have standing to raise facial challenge to validity of aggravated assault statutes for their risk of creating double jeopardy grounds because he himself was not charged in way that created double jeopardy holding that a defendant and his attorney are a single entity with respect to double jeopardy waiver holding trial court properly denied defendant relief under rule 3800b2 where defendant attempted to attack his conviction rather than his sentence with a double jeopardy argument holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that the prosecution cannot divide a single crime into multiple units to avoid double jeopardy