For a trial judge nothing can be as frustrating (and at times confusing) about what to do when the dreaded note that reads “we have reached a verdict on some of the charges but can’t agree on all of them” comes from the jury. In a criminal case, there are concerns about double jeapordy and the answer differs among the states, at least for the time being. The United States Supreme Court accepted a case out of Arkansas which may clarfiy the law. The case is  Blueford v. Arkansas (docket 10-1320).  At the murder trial of Alex Blueford, the trial judge told the jury to consider capital murder and three lesser crimes — first-degree murder, manslaughter, and negligent homicide.  It should not consider any of those, the judge said, unless it first agreed unanimously that Blueford was not guilty of a greater offense, in order of the seriousness of the offense.  The forewoman announced in court that the jury had voted unanimously against capital murder and first-degree murder, and had deadlocked on manslaughter, so it did not consider the negligent homicide charge, a more serious charge.  The judge granted a mistrial, rejecting defense lawyers’ plea to declare a partial verdict of acquittal on capital murder and first-degree murder.   When Blueford was retried, prosecutors pursued guilty verdicts on all of the prior charges.   The trial judge refused to dismiss the more serious charges, and Blueford then lost a pre-trial appeal to the Arkansas Supreme Court.   Lower courts are split on the double jeopardy question.