In State v. Minnitt, 203 Ariz. 431, 438-39, 29-35, 55 P.3d 774, 781-82 (2002), the Arizona Supreme Court applied the bar of double jeopardy based on prosecutorial misconduct in the first two trials, even though the defendant was convicted in the third trial, which was apparently free of such misconduct. As the court explained: This case is an anomaly; egregious prosecutorial misconduct occurred in Minnitt's first two trials, but the third trial, conducted by a new prosecutor and allegedly free of misconduct, resulted in a conviction. We note, however, that whether or not the third trial was free from false testimony, falsehoods in the two previous trials permeated the process to the extent that fairness in the third trial could not correct the misdeeds of trials one and two. Minnitt, 203 Ariz. at 440,43, 55 P.3d at 783.