{"id":{"repo_id":"wustl","oai_identifier":"oai:openscholarship.wustl.edu:law_etds-1039"},"canonical_url":"https://search.dev.ndltd.org/etd/wustl/oai:openscholarship.wustl.edu:law_etds-1039","repository":{"repo_id":"wustl","name":"Washington University in St. Louis","base_url":"https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/do/oai/"},"display":{"title":"The Prohibition of Successive Prosecutions and Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense : in Search of Standards. Volume 2.","abstract":"The purpose of the thesis is to formulate a definition of the protection offered by state and federal law against double jeopardy for the \"same offense.\" The thesis first examines the history and purpose of the double jeopardy concept. It next analyzes the Supreme Court double jeopardy clause jurisprudence to develop a framework for fifth amendment analysis that is consistent with the history and purpose of the prohibition against double jeopardy States are, of course, bound by this framework as a minimum standard for resolving double jeopardy cases, but they are free to develop other approaches as long as they are consistent with the minimum standard. Chapter Five examines the different solutions to the problem, and these solutions are evaluated in light of the minimum standard articulated by the Supreme Court. Chapter Six analyzes and evaluates state legislative solutions to the problem. The conclusion offers recommendations for simplifying the same offense definitional problem that are consistent with the Supreme Court framework.","abstract_html":"The purpose of the thesis is to formulate a definition of the protection offered by state and federal law against double jeopardy for the "same offense." The thesis first examines the history and purpose of the double jeopardy concept. It next analyzes the Supreme Court double jeopardy clause jurisprudence to develop a framework for fifth amendment analysis that is consistent with the history and purpose of the prohibition against double jeopardy States are, of course, bound by this framework as a minimum standard for resolving double jeopardy cases, but they are free to develop other approaches as long as they are consistent with the minimum standard. Chapter Five examines the different solutions to the problem, and these solutions are evaluated in light of the minimum standard articulated by the Supreme Court. Chapter Six analyzes and evaluates state legislative solutions to the problem. The conclusion offers recommendations for simplifying the same offense definitional problem that are consistent with the Supreme Court framework.","abstract_has_math":false,"creators":["Thomas, George Conner, III"],"institution":null,"degree_name":"Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD)","degree_level":"Dissertation","degree_discipline":null,"degree_department":null,"school":null,"contributors":["Frank W. Miller, James Carr Professor of Criminal Jurisprudence, Kathleen F. Brickey, Professor of Law"],"advisors":[],"committee_chairs":[],"committee_members":[],"year":1986,"date_issued":"1986-01-01T08:00:00Z","date_published":"1986-01-01T08:00:00Z","updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:12:01Z","subjects":["Criminal Law","Law"],"languages":["English"],"rights":[],"rights_urls":[],"identifier_entries":[]},"links":{"outbound_url":"https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_etds/40","outbound_label":"Repository record","outbound_source":"dc:identifier"},"metadata_groups":[{"id":"people","label":"People","entries":[{"key":"dc:contributor","label":"Contributor","values":["Frank W. Miller, James Carr Professor of Criminal Jurisprudence, Kathleen F. Brickey, Professor of Law"]},{"key":"dc:creator","label":"Author","values":["Thomas, George Conner, III"]}]},{"id":"academic_context","label":"Academic Context","entries":[{"key":"dc:date.available","label":"Dc Date Available","values":["2018-04-24T07:00:00Z"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_level","label":"Degree Level","values":["Dissertation"]},{"key":"thesis:degree_name","label":"Degree Name","values":["Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD)"]}]},{"id":"subjects_keywords","label":"Subjects and Keywords","entries":[{"key":"dc:subject","label":"Dc Subject","values":["Criminal Law","Law"]}]},{"id":"language_rights","label":"Language and Rights","entries":[{"key":"dc:language","label":"Dc Language","values":["English"]}]},{"id":"identifiers","label":"Identifiers","entries":[{"key":"dc:identifier","label":"Identifier","values":["https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_etds/40"]}]},{"id":"additional","label":"Additional Metadata","entries":[{"key":"dc:description.abstract","label":"Abstract","values":["The purpose of the thesis is to formulate a definition of the protection offered by state and federal law against double jeopardy for the \"same offense.\" The thesis first examines the history and purpose of the double jeopardy concept. It next analyzes the Supreme Court double jeopardy clause jurisprudence to develop a framework for fifth amendment analysis that is consistent with the history and purpose of the prohibition against double jeopardy States are, of course, bound by this framework as a minimum standard for resolving double jeopardy cases, but they are free to develop other approaches as long as they are consistent with the minimum standard. Chapter Five examines the different solutions to the problem, and these solutions are evaluated in light of the minimum standard articulated by the Supreme Court. Chapter Six analyzes and evaluates state legislative solutions to the problem. The conclusion offers recommendations for simplifying the same offense definitional problem that are consistent with the Supreme Court framework."]},{"key":"dc:title","label":"Title","values":["The Prohibition of Successive Prosecutions and Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense : in Search of Standards. Volume 2."]}]}],"canonical_facts":{"dc:contributor":["Frank W. Miller, James Carr Professor of Criminal Jurisprudence, Kathleen F. Brickey, Professor of Law"],"dc:creator":["Thomas, George Conner, III"],"dc:date.available":["2018-04-24T07:00:00Z"],"dc:description.abstract":["The purpose of the thesis is to formulate a definition of the protection offered by state and federal law against double jeopardy for the \"same offense.\" The thesis first examines the history and purpose of the double jeopardy concept. It next analyzes the Supreme Court double jeopardy clause jurisprudence to develop a framework for fifth amendment analysis that is consistent with the history and purpose of the prohibition against double jeopardy States are, of course, bound by this framework as a minimum standard for resolving double jeopardy cases, but they are free to develop other approaches as long as they are consistent with the minimum standard. Chapter Five examines the different solutions to the problem, and these solutions are evaluated in light of the minimum standard articulated by the Supreme Court. Chapter Six analyzes and evaluates state legislative solutions to the problem. The conclusion offers recommendations for simplifying the same offense definitional problem that are consistent with the Supreme Court framework."],"dc:identifier":["https://openscholarship.wustl.edu/law_etds/40"],"dc:language":["English"],"dc:subject":["Criminal Law","Law"],"dc:title":["The Prohibition of Successive Prosecutions and Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense : in Search of Standards. Volume 2."],"thesis:degree_level":["Dissertation"],"thesis:degree_name":["Doctor of Juridical Science (SJD)"]},"updated_at":"2026-07-24T06:12:01Z"}