When will the Attorney General argue that defendant forfeited his double jeopardy argument by failing to enter a plea of former jeopardy to the amended information charging voluntary manslaughter?

At the outset, we also reject the Attorney General's contention defendant forfeited his double jeopardy argument by failing to enter a plea of former jeopardy to the amended information charging voluntary manslaughter. In our view, a plea of former jeopardy would not have made sense here. Where a jury deadlocks and a mistrial is declared, there is no former jeopardy because "the second trial does not place the defendant in jeopardy 'twice.' [Citations.] Instead, a jury's inability to reach a decision is the kind of 'manifest necessity' that permits the declaration of a mistrial and the continuation of the initial jeopardy that commenced when the jury was first impaneled." (Yeager, supra, 557 U.S. at p. 118.) Here, defendant's motion to preclude litigation on a discrete issue implicitly acknowledged he could be retried on the deadlocked charge of voluntary manslaughter. If " ' "[t]he purpose of the general doctrine of waiver is to encourage a defendant to bring errors to the attention of the trial court, so that they may be corrected or avoided and a fair trial had . . . ." ' " (People v. Saunders (1993) 5 Cal.4th 580, 590), then defendant's motion accomplished that purpose. No waiver or forfeiture occurred. (Id. at p. 592.) We, therefore, turn to the merits of defendant's claim.