In United States v. Moore (C.A. 6, 1999), No. 96-2566, 1999 U.S. App, the defendant was charged in a two-count indictment with intent to distribute cocaine base and with being a felon in possession of a firearm. The defendant was tried three times. The first and second trials resulted in mistrials from hung juries; however, the defendant was acquitted of the firearms charge after the second trial. Relying on Michigan case law, the defendant argued his retrial violated his due process rights. The court noted: "The Michigan Supreme Court reversed that decision finding no due process bar to subsequent retrials after mistrials. We agree that neither Michigan nor federal due process guarantees create a right to preclude defendant's retrial. Therefore, a third trial was proper." Id. Thus, Moore makes clear there is no stated federal due process right to preclude a defendant's retrial following a hung jury. To the extent Ohio courts have entertained this issue, the Ninth District in State v. Roper, 9th Dist. No. 20836, 2002 Ohio 7321, discussed the Supreme Court of Hawaii's list of the following factors to be considered when reaching such a determination: "1) the severity of the offense charged; 2) the number of prior mistrials and the circumstances of the jury deliberation therein, so far as is known; 3) the character of prior trials in terms of length, complexity and similarity of evidence presented; 4) the likelihood of any substantial difference in a subsequent trial, if allowed; 5) the trial court's own evaluation of the relative case strength; 6) the professional conduct and diligence of respective counsel, particularly that of the prosecuting attorney." Id. at P85. In United States v. Moore, 159 F.3d 1154, 1158 (9th Cir. 1998) the defendant and his counsel engaged in a serious argument when counsel failed to inform Moore of an important development in his case. Moore, 159 F.3d at 1159. Moore threatened to sue his attorney for malpractice. Id. The attorney later testified that, on that occasion, he felt physically threatened by Moore. Id. The Court of Appeals accepted Moore's view that his attorney did nothing in a 68-day period leading up to trial except to interview Moore's son. Id.