In United States v. Tateo, (1964) 377 U.S. 463, the trial court abused its discretion by coercing a plea from the defendant after the jury had been impaneled. Because the jury had been sworn, jeopardy attached. The Supreme Court, however, concluded that, as "a well-established part of our constitutional jurisprudence," the Double Jeopardy Clause did "not preclude the Government's retrying a defendant whose conviction is set aside because of an error in the proceedings leading to conviction . . . ." (Tateo, supra , 377 U.S. at p. 465.) The court in Tateo also observed, "From the standpoint of a defendant, it is at least doubtful that appellate courts would be as zealous as they are now in protecting against the effects at improprieties at the trial or pretrial stage if they knew that reversal of a conviction would put the accused irrevocably beyond the reach of further prosecution. In reality, therefore, the practice of retrial serves defendant's rights as well as society's interest." (Ibid.)