In Ex parte Nice, 407 So. 2d 874, 878 (Ala. 1981) the Court engaged in a lengthy discussion of the possibility of mandamus relief in criminal cases, where the State's appeal of a particular order is foreclosed by law. The Court stated: "Mandamus cannot be used as a substitute for appeal, when no appeal is authorized by law or court rule, but mandamus can be used to prevent a gross disruption in the administration of criminal justice. This principle of law is sound and is due to be followed, but equally sound is the principle that mandamus can be used by the government in aid of its lawful rights in the prosecution of criminal cases. In United States v. Dooling, 406 F.2d 192 (2d Cir. 1969), the Court, in granting mandamus, opined: "'We will not pause to determine whether, if Judge Dooling entered his proposed order, the government would be able to appeal his determination under 18 U.S.C. 3731 (1964). Even if it were clear that the government could not appeal the government's argument for mandamus would not be made more compelling, for mandamus may not do service for an appeal which has been barred by the Constitution. Will v. United States, 389 U.S. 90, 97, 19 L. Ed. 2d 305, 88 S. Ct. 269 . . . (1967). We think it equally true that the fact that the government may have no right of appeal does not act as a conclusive bar to the issuance of mandamus in its favor. Certainly the restrictions placed upon the government's right to appeal do reflect important policy judgments by Congress, at their core protecting the right against double jeopardy, which must not be undermined by casual resort to mandamus. But circumstances can arise which present a compelling need for the issuance of mandamus in order to further important countervailing interests. Here we find this need in our responsibility for preventing gross disruption in the administration of criminal justice, and we act pursuant to our supervisory power over the district courts. Cf. United States v. Bryan, 393 F.2d 90 (2d Cir. 1968). The Supreme Court, in affirming the issuance of a writ of mandamus by the Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit, expressed in the clearest terms its support for the power we now exercise: "'"We believe that supervisory control of the District Courts by the Courts of Appeals is necessary to proper judicial administration in the federal system. La Buy v. Howes Leather Co., 352 U.S. 249, 259-260, 1 L. Ed. 2d 290, 77 S. Ct. 309 ... (1957)."'" (Ex parte Nice, 407 So. 2d at 879-80.) The power of an appellate court of this state to issue a writ of mandamus at the request of the State in a criminal case when the Legislature has not provided the remedy of appeal is not unqualified. We have said: "Casual resort to mandamus cannot be permitted to undermine an accused's right against double jeopardy, and only the rarest of circumstances merit an intervention in a criminal case by mandamus; nevertheless, circumstances can arise which present a compelling need for the issuance of mandamus to further important countervailing public interests." (Ex parte Nice, 407 So. 2d at 880.)