Double jeopardy principles do not bar retrial where the defendant’s conviction is reversed because a single juror was improperly discharged near the end of trial. The court assumed that the juror was improperly excused. Generally, 1) the double jeopardy guarantee imposes no limitation on the power to retry a defendant whose conviction is reversed on grounds other than insufficiency of the evidence; 2) the policies underlying double jeopardy do not warrant the ultimate sanction of immunity from prosecution under the circumstances of this case; and 3) a fear that “routine” discharge of jurors in violation of Penal Code section 1089 could occur is highly unlikely, since it requires concurrence of the trial court, and standards for discharge have recently been clarified.