Senior Circuit Judge. Applicants for habeas corpus relief often present an array of claims, some of which yield broader redress than others. The king of habeas remedies is an order for unconditional release with prejudice to re-prosecution. If the fact of the petitioner’s prosecution (or any reprosecution upon the vacation of his conviction) would violate the Constitution, that relief will follow. A paradigmatic example of this phenomenon is when jeopardy has attached and the evidence adduced at trial is found, upon collateral review, to be constitutionally insufficient to sustain the conviction. See Burks v. United States, 437 U.S. 1, 18, 98 S.Ct. 2141, 57 L.Ed.2d 1 (1978) (<HOLDING>); Fagan v. Washington, 942 F.2d 1155, 1157,
holding that a delinquency proceeding places a juvenile in jeopardy for purposes of the double jeopardy clause holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court has found the evidence legally insufficient holding that the double jeopardy clause precludes a second trial once the reviewing court finds the evidence legally insufficient and that the only just remedy is the direction of a judgment of acquittal holding the double jeopardy clause applicable to the states through the due process clause of the fourteenth amendment holding that double jeopardy clause did not apply to forfeiture proceeding before the court