Amar, Akil Reed, Double Jeopardy Law Made Simple, 106 Yale L.J. 1807 (1997).
———, Forward: Some Sixth Amendment Principles, 84 Geo. L.J. 641 (1996).
———, Reconstructing Double Jeopardy: Some Thoughts on the Rodney King Case, 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 1 (1995).
Amar, Akhil Reed, and Jonathan L. Marcus, Double Jeopardy Law After Rodney King, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1 (1995).
Anderson, Angela, Asset Forfeiture as Double Jeopardy, 32 Idaho L. Rev. 545 (1996).
1 Annals of Congress (1789).
Attenborough, F. L., ed. and trans., Laws of the Earliest English Kings (Cambridge University Press 1922).
The Babylonian Laws (Godfrey Rolls Driver and John C. Mills, eds. and trans., Clarendon Press 1955).
Batchelder, Charles E., Former Jeopardy, 17 Am. L. Rev. 735 (1883).
Bentham, Jeremy, Introduction to the Principles of Morals and Legislation (1789).
Bishop, Joel, Bishop on Criminal Law (9th ed., T. H. Flood 1923).
Blackstone, William, Commentaries on the Laws of England.
Bracton, Henrici, De Legibus et Consuetudinibus Angliae (George E. Woodbine, ed., Samuel E. Thorne, trans., with revisions and notes, Harvard University Press 1968).
Bradley, Craig, Racketeers, Congress, and the Courts: An Analysis of RICO, 65 Iowa L. Rev. 837 (1980).
Brickey, Kathleen F., The Jurisprudence of Larceny: An Historical Inquiry and Interest Analysis, 33 Vand. L. Rev. 1101 (1980).
Britton (Francis Morgan Nichols, trans., Clarendon Press 1983).
Carroway, William L., Pervasive Multiple Offense Problems—A Policy Analysis, 1971 Utah L. Rev. 105.
Cassell, Paul G., The Rodney King Trial and the Double Jeopardy Clause: Some Observations on Original Meaning and the ACLU’s Schizophrenic Views of the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, 41 UCLA L. Rev. 693 (1994).
Cassella, Stefan D., Status of Double Jeopardy and Forfeiture Law in the Sixth Circuit, 84 Ky. L.J. 553 (1995–96).
Cohen, Felix, Transcendental Nonsense and the Functional Approach, 35 Colum. L. Rev. 809 (1935).
Coke, Edward, The Third Part of the Institutes of the Laws of England (1669).
Colb, Sherry F., Freedom from Incarceration: Why Is This Right Different from All Other Rights?, 69 NYU L. Rev. 781 (1994).
Comley, William H., Former Jeopardy, 35 Yale L.J. 674 (1926).
Cox, Stanley E., Halper’s Continuing Double Jeopardy Implications: A Thorn by Any Other Name Would Prick as Deep, 39 St.L. U.L. Rev. 1235 (1995).
Demosthenes (James Herbert Vince, trans., Harvard University Press 1954).
The Digest of Justinian (Theodor Mommsen, Paul Kreuger, Alan Watson, eds., University of Pennsylvania Press 1985).
Dworkin, Ronald, Law’s Empire (Harvard University Press 1986).
Evans, Michael, and R. Ian Jack, eds., Sources of English Legal and Constitutional History (Butterworths 1984).
Feinberg, Joel, Harm to Self (Oxford University Press 1989).
———, Harmless Wrongdoing (Oxford University Press 1988).
———, Offenses to Others (Oxford University Press 1988).
———, Harm to Others (Oxford University Press 1987).
Findlater, Janet, Retrial After a Hung Jury: The Double Jeopardy Problem, 129 U. Pa. L.Rev. 701 (1981).
Finklestein, J. J., The Laws of Ur-Nammu, 22 J. Cuneiform Studies 66 (1969). Fisher, Walter T., Double Jeopardy: Six Common Boners Summarized, 15 U.C.L.A. L. Rev. 81 (1967).
Fiss, Owen, Objectivity and Interpretation, 34 Stan. L. Rev. 739 (1982).
Fleta (H. G. Richardson and G. O. Sayles, eds. and trans., Bernard Quaritch 1955).
Flynn, Paul G., Judicial Sentencing Error: Thomas v. Morris and the Double Jeopardy Clause, 16 Pepperdine L. Rev. 613 (1989).
Friedland, Martin L., Double Jeopardy (Clarendon Press 1969).
Garcia-Rivera, Luis, Dodging Double Jeopardy: Combined Civil and Criminal Trials, 26 Stetson L. Rev. 373 (1996).
Goldin, Hyman Elias, Hebrew Criminal Law and Procedure (Twayne Publishers 1952).
Gooch, J. T., Is the Plea of Autrefois Acquit for Misdemeanors Justifiable in Kentucky?, 4 Ky. L.J. (March 1916) 20.
Guerra, Sandra, The Myth of Dual Sovereignty: Multijurisdictional Drug Law Enforcement and Double Jeopardy, 73 N.C. L. Rev. 1159 (1995).
Haddad, William A., and David G. Mullock, Double Jeopardy Problems in the Definition of Same Offense: State Discretion to Invoke the Criminal Process Twice, 22 U. Fla. L. Rev. 515 (1970).
Hale, Matthew, A History of the Pleas of the Crown (1847).
Hall, Gary H., The Effect of Double Jeopardy on Asset Forfeiture, 32 Idaho L. Rev. 527 (1996).
Hegland, Kenney, Goodbye to Deconstruction, 58 S. Cal. L. Rev. 1203 (1985).
Henning, Peter J., Precedents in a Vacuum: The Supreme Court Continues to Tinker with Double Jeopardy, 31 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 1 (1993).
Herman, Susan N., Reconstructing the Bill of Rights: A Reply to Amar and Marcus’s Triple Play on Double Jeopardy, 95 Colum. L. Rev. 1090 (1995).
———, Double Jeopardy All Over Again: Dual Sovereignty, Rodney King, and the ACLU, 41 UCLA L. Rev. 609 (1994).
Hoffman, Paul, Double Jeopardy Wars: The Case for a Civil Rights “Exception,” 41 UCLA L. Rev. 649 (1994).
Horack, Frank, The Multiple Consequences of a Single Criminal Act, 21 Minn. L. Rev. 805 (1937).
Hunter, Jill, The Development of the Rule Against Double Jeopardy, 5 Journal of Legal History 2 (1984).
Husak, Douglas N., The Philosophy of Criminal Law (Rowman and Littlefield 1987).
Johnson, Phillip, The Unnecessary Crime of Conspiracy, 61 Calif. L. Rev. 1137 (1973).
———, Multiple Punishment and Consecutive Sentences: Reflections on the Neal Doctrine, 58 Calif. L. Rev. 357 (1970).
Kafka, Franz, In the Penal Colony (Willa Muir and Edwin Muir, trans., Schocken 1961).
Kant, Immanuel, The Philosophy of Law (W. Hastie, trans., 1887).
Kelman, Mark, A Guide to Critical Legal Studies (Harvard University Press 1987)
Klein, Susan R., Civil In Rem Forfeiture and Double Jeopardy, 82 Iowa L. Rev. 183 (1996).
King, Nancy J., Portioning Punishment: Constitutional Limits on Successive and Excessive Penalties, 144 U. Pa. L. Rev. 101 (1995).
———, Professor Amar’s Three-Dimensional View of Double Jeopardy: Adjusting the Focus, 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 18 (1995).
Kirchheimer, Otto, The Act, the Offense and Double Jeopardy, 58 Yale L.J. 513 (1949).
Kravitz, Max, Ohio’s Administrative License Suspension: A Double Jeopardy and Due Process Analysis, 29 Akron L. Rev. 123 (1996).
LaFave, Wayne R., and Jerold H. Israel, Criminal Procedure (2d ed., West 1992) (hornbook edition).
LaFave, Wayne R., and Austin W. Scott, Criminal Law (2d ed., West 1986) (hornbook edition).
McElroy, Michael A., Double Jeopardy: The Ephemeral Guarantee, 5 Crim. L. Bull. 375 (1969).
McKay, Monroe G., Double Jeopardy: Are the Pieces the Puzzle?, 23 Washburn L.J. 1 (1983).
McKechnie, William Sharp, Magna Carta, A Commentary on the Great Charter of King John 359–367 (2d ed., Burt Franklin 1958).
McLaren, W. G., The Doctrine of Res Judicata as Applied to the Trial of Criminal Cases, 10 Wash. L. Rev. 198 (1935).
Mack, Barbara A., Double Jeopardy—Civil Forfeitures and Criminal Punishment: Who Determines What Punishments Fit the Crime, 19 Seattle U. L. Rev. 217 (1996).
Maitland, Frederic W., ed., 1 Select Pleas of the Crown, a.d. 1200–1225 (1888).
Mead, Susanah, M., Double Jeopardy Protection—Illusion or Reality?, 13 Ind. L. Rev. 863 (1980).
Mendelsohn, Samuel, The Criminal Jurisprudence of the Ancient Hebrews (Hermon Press 1968).
The Mirror Of Justices (William Joseph Whittaker, ed., 1895).
Model Penal Code (Proposed Official Draft 1962).
Moore, Michael S., Act and Crime (Oxford University Press 1993).
Mueller, Eric L., The Hobgoblin of Little Minds? Our Foolish Law of Inconsistent Verdicts, 111 Harv. L. Rev. 771 (1998).
Neafsey, Ed, and Edward R. Bonanno, Parallel Proceedings and the Fifth Amendment’s Double Jeopardy Clause, 7 Fordham Envtl. L.J. 719 (1996).
Olson, Trisha, Comity, Justice, and Recognizing the Sameness of the Other: A Response to Reconstructing Double Jeopardy, 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 37 (1995).
The Opinions of Paulus, in The Civil Law, ed. and trans. S. P. Scott. 17 vols. Rpt. (AMS Press 1973).
Owens, Richard, Alabama’s Minority Status: A Single Criminal Act Injuring Multiple Persons Constitutes Only a Single Offense, 16 Cumb. L. Rev. 85 (1985).
Pasley, Robert S., Double Jeopardy and Civil Money Penalties, 114 Banking L.J. 4 (1997).
Paulsen, Michael Stokes, Double Jeopardy Law After Akhil Amar: Some Civil Procedure Analogies and Inquiries, 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 23 (1995).
Peller, Gary, The Metaphysics of American Law, 73 Cal. L. Rev. 1151 (1985).
Perkins, Rollin M., and Ronald M. Boyce, Criminal Law (3d ed., Foundation Press 1982).
Pollock, Frederick, and Frederic William Maitland, The History of English Law Before the Time of Edward I (2d ed. 1899).
Ponsoldt, James F., When Guilt Should Be Irrelevant: Government Overreaching as a Bar to Reprosecution Under the Double Jeopardy Clause After Oregon v. Kennedy, 69 Cornell L. Rev. 76 (1983).
Posner, Richard, The Jurisprudence of Skepticism, 86 Mich. L. Rev. 827 (1988).
Poulin, Anne Bowen, Double Jeopardy and Judicial Accountability: When Is an Acquittal Not an Acquittal?, 27 Ariz. St. L.J. 953 (1995).
———, The Limits of Double Jeopardy: A Course into the Dark?, 39 Vill. L. Rev. 627 (1994).
———, Double Jeopardy Protection Against Successive Prosecutions in Complex Criminal Cases: A Model, 25 Conn. L. Rev. 95 (1992).
———, Grady and Dowling Stir the Muddy Waters, 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 889 (1991).
———, Collateral Estoppel in Criminal Cases: Reuse of Evidence after Acquittal, 58 U. Cin. L. Rev. 1 (1989).
Reiss, Steven A., Prosecutorial Intent in Constitutional Criminal Procedure, 135 U. Pa. L.Rev. 1365 (1987).
Remington, Frank J., and Allan J. Joseph, Charging, Convicting, and Sentencing the Multiple Criminal Offender, 1961 Wis. L. Rev. 528.
Richardson, Eli J., Eliminating Double Talk from the Law of Double Jeopardy, 22 Fla. St. U. L. Rev. 119 (1994).
Richman, Daniel C., Bargaining About Future Jeopardy, 49 Vand. L. Rev. 1181 (1996).
Robinson, Paul H., and Jane A. Grall, Element Analysis in Defining Criminal Liability: The Model Penal Code and Beyond, 35 Stan. L. Rev. 681 (1983).
Ronner, Amy D., Prometheus Unbound: Accepting a Mythless Concept of Civil In Rem Forfeiture with Double Jeopardy Protection, 44 Buff. L. Rev. 655 (1996).
Rudstein, David S., Double Jeopardy and the Fraudulently-Obtained Acquittal, 60 Mo. L. Rev. 607 (1995).
———, Civil Penalties and Multiple Punishment Under the Double Jeopardy Clause: Some Unanswered Questions, 46 Okla. L. Rev. 587 (1993).
———, Double Jeopardy and Summary Contempt Proceedings, 69 Notre Dame L. Rev. 691 (1993).
Russell, M. J., Trial by Battle and the Appeals of Felony, 1 Journal of Legal History 135 (1980).
Schwartz, Stephen Jay, Multiple Punishments for the “Same Offense”: Michigan Grapples with the Definitional Problem, 25 Wayne L. Rev. 825 (1979).
Schulhofer, Stephen J., Jeopardy and Mistrials, 125 U. Pa. L. Rev. 449 (1977).
Schuman, David, Taking Law Seriously: Communitarian Search and Seizure, 27 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 583 (1990).
1 Senate Journal (1789).
Shellenberger, James A., and James A. Strazzella, The Lesser-Included Offense Doctrine and the Constitution: The Development of Due Process and Double Jeopardy Remedies, 79 Marq. L. Rev. 1 (1995).
Sigler, Jay. A., Double Jeopardy, The Development of a Legal and Social Policy (Cornell University Press 1969).
Solum, Lawrence, On the Indeterminacy Crisis: Critiquing Critical Dogma, 54 U. Chi. L. Rev. 462 (1987).
Story, Joseph, Commentaries on the Constitution (1833).
Strachan-Davidson, James Leigh, Problems of the Roman Criminal Law (Clarendon Press 1969).
Strazzella, James A., The Relationship of Double Jeopardy to Prosecution Appeals, 73 Notre Dame L. Rev. 1 (1997).
Talmadge, Philip A., Preface: Double Jeopardy in Washington and Beyond, 19 Seattle U. L. Rev. 209 (1996).
Theis, William H., The Double Jeopardy Defense and Multiple Prosecutions for Conspiracy, 49 SMU L. Rev. 269 (1996).
Thomas, George C., III, A Blameworthy Act Approach to the Double Jeopardy Same Offense Problem, 83 Calif. L. Rev. 1027 (1995).
———, Legal Skepticism and the Gravitational Effect of Law, 43 Rutgers L. Rev. 965 (1991).
———, A Modest Proposal to Save the Double Jeopardy Clause, 69 Wash. U.L.Q. 195 (1991).
———, An Elegant Theory of Double Jeopardy, 1988 U. Ill. L. Rev. 827.
———, Sentencing Problems Under the Multiple Punishment Doctrine, 31 Vill. L. Rev. 1351 (1986).
———, Successive Prosecutions for the Same Offense: In Search of a Definition, 71 Iowa L. Rev. 323 (1986).
———, A Unified Theory of Multiple Punishment, 47 U. Pitt. L. Rev. 1 (1985).
———, Multiple Punishments for the Same Offense: The Analysis After Missouri v. Hunter, 62 Wash. U.L.Q. 79 (1984).
———, RICO Prosecutions and the Double Jeopardy/Multiple Punishment Problem, 78 Nw. U.L. Rev. 1359 (1984).
Thomas, George C., III, and Barry S. Pollack, Rethinking Guilt, Juries, and Jeopardy, 91 Mich. L. Rev. 1 (1992).
The Treatise on the Laws and Customs of the Realm of England Commonly Called Glanvill (G. D. G. Hall, ed., Nelson 1965).
Venkatesh, Vendana, Taxation, Double Jeopardy, and the Excessive Fines Clause: Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 48 Tax Law. 911 (1995).
Vestal, Allen D., and John C. Coughenour, Preclusion/Res Judicata Variables: Criminal Prosecutions, 19 Vand. L. Rev. 683 (1966).
Vestal, Allan D., and Douglas J. Gilbert, Preclusion of Duplicative Prosecutions: A Developing Mosiac, 47 Mo. L. Rev. 1 (1982).
Westen, Peter, The Three Faces of Double Jeopardy: Reflections on Government Appeals of Criminal Sentences, 78 Mich. L. Rev. 1001 (1980).
Westen, Peter, and Richard Drubel, Toward a General Theory of Double Jeopardy, 1978 Sup. Ct. Rev. 81.
Williams, Joan, Critical Legal Studies: The Death of Transcendence and the Rise of the New Landells, 62 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 429 (1987).
Note and Comment, The Impact of Recent Double Jeopardy Decisions on Federal Agencies, 10 Admin. L.J. Am. U. 327 (1996).
Note, Two Views of Austin v. United States: Is a Civil Forfeiture Action to Collect “Proceeds” Pursuant to Title 21 U.S.C. § 881 (A)(6) Still Exempt From the Protections of the Double Jeopardy Clause?, 23 Am. J. Crim. L. 431 (1996).
Note, Truly Constitutional? The American Double Jeopardy Clause and Australian Analogues, 33 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 123 (1995).
Note, Mistrials and Double Jeopardy, 15 Am. Crim. L. Rev. 169 (1977).
Case Comment, Expanding Double Jeopardy: Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 75 B.U. L. Rev. 505 (1995).
Note, Double Jeopardy and the Concept of Identity of Offenses, 7 Brooklyn L. Rev. 79 (1937).
Note, Double Jeopardy: Prosecution for Underlying Felony Following Acquittal for Felony-Murder, 9 Buffalo L. Rev. 378 (1959).
Note, North Carolina and Pretrial Civil Revocation of an Impaired Driver’s License and the Double Jeopardy Clause, 18 Campbell L. Rev. 391 (1996).
Note, To Punish or to Remedy—That Is the Constitutional Question: Double Jeopardy Confusion in State v. Hansen, 30 Creighton L. Rev. 235 (1996).
Casenote, The Tax Man Cometh, But Fear Not: The Double Jeopardy Clause Bars Criminal Taxation of Drugs Contingent on Criminal Conduct: Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 28 Creighton L. Rev. 475 (1995).
Comment, Wrongful Death and Double Jeopardy, 26 Cumb. L. Rev. 231 (1995–96).
Comment, Double Jeopardy and the Identity of Offenses, 2 De Paul L. Rev. 263, 266 (1953).
Comment, The Potential Double Jeopardy Implications of Administrative License Revocation, 46 Emory L.J. 329 (1997).
Note, Administrative License Suspensions, Criminal Prosecution and the Double Jeopardy Clause, 23 Fordham Urb. L.J. 923 (1996).
Casenote, Drunk Driving, Administrative License Suspension, and Double Jeopardy in Virginia: Tench v. Commonwealth, 4 Geo. Mason L. Rev. 521 (1996).
Summary, Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch: The Expansion of Double Jeopardy Jurisprudence into Civil Tax Proceedings, 25 Golden Gate U. L. Rev. 331 (1995).
The Supreme Court 1995 Term, Double Jeopardy Clause—In Rem Civil Forfeiture, 110 Harv. L. Rev. 206 (1996).
Note, The Identity of Offenses, 20 Harv. L. Rev. 642 (1907).
Note, The Supreme Court Assaults State Drug Taxes with a Double Jeopardy Dagger: Death Blow, Serious Injury, or Flesh Wound, 29 Ind. L. Rev. 695 (1996).
Note, Put Down That Drink!: The Double Jeopardy Drunk Driving Defense Is Not Going to Save You, 81 Iowa L. Rev. 775 (1996).
Supreme Court Review, Witte v. United States: Double Jeopardy and the United States Sentencing Guidelines, 86 J. Crim. L. and Criminology 1539 (1996).
Supreme Court Review, Fifth Amendment—Double Jeopardy and the Dangerous Drug Tax, 85 J. Crim. L. and Criminology 936 (1994).
New Decisions, Addition to Tax Not Double Jeopardy for Convicted Cocaine Dealer, 83 J. Tax’n 316 (1995).
Comment, Double Jeopardy: Vandercomb to Chicos—Two Centuries of Failure in Search of a Standard, 45 J. Urban L. 405 (1967).
Comment, Double Jeopardy and the Identity of Offenses, 21 La. L. Rev. 615 (1961).
Note, One Bite at the Apple: Reversals of Convictions Tainted by Prosecutorial Misconduct and the Ban of Double Jeopardy, 94 Mich. L. Rev. 1346 (1996).
Note and Comment, Is the DUI Double-Jeopardy Defense D.O.A.?, 29 Loy. L.A. L. Rev. 1273 (1996).
Note, Criminal Law and Procedure—Tests of “Same Offense,” 32 Mich. L. Rev. 512 (1932).
Note, Multiple Prosecution and Punishment of Unitary Criminal Conduct—Minn. Stat. § 609.035, 56 Minn. L. Rev. 646 (1972).
Note, Criminal Law—Double Jeopardy, 24 Minn. L. Rev. 522 (1940).
Note, Double Jeopardy vs. DUI: Is a License Revocation for Driving Under the Influence Punishment or a Remedial Sanction?, 23 New Eng. J. on Crim. and Civ. Confinement 239 (1997).
Note, Two-Tiered Test for Double Jeopardy Analysis in New Mexico, 10 New Mexico L. Rev. 195 (1980).
Note, Mistrial and Double Jeopardy, 49 N.Y.U. L. Rev. 937 (1974).
Casenote, Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch: Double Jeopardy. A: Multiple Punishment Component. Q: What is Confusion? Continuing Where Halper and Austin Left Off, 15 N. Ill. U.L. Rev. 433 (1995).
Comment, An Analysis of Wharton’s Rule: Iannelli v. United States and One Step Beyond, 71 Nw. U.L. Rev. 547 (1976).
Comment, Double Jeopardy and Reprosecution After Mistrial: Is the Manifest Necessity Test Manifestly Necessary, 69 Nw. U.L. Rev. 887 (1975).
Note, A Closer Look at the Supreme Court and the Double Jeopardy Clause, 49 Ohio St. L.J. 779 (1988).
New Jersey Developments, Primitive Justice: Private Prosecutions in Municipal Court Under New Jersey Rule 7:4–4(b), 44 Rutgers L. Rev. 205 (1991).
Comment, Multiple Punishment and the Double Jeopardy Clause: The United Sates v. Ursery Decision, 71 St. John’s L. Rev. 153 (1997).
Casenote, Imposition of Montana Drug Penalty Tax Constitutes Double Jeopardy, 5 Seton Hall Const. L.J. 1231 (1995).
Survey of Recent Developments, Constitutional Law, Fifth Amendment and Eighth Amendment, Eviction of Tenant Convicted of Drug Offense, 27 Seton Hall L. Rev. 1161 (1997).
Comment, Applying Section 654 of the Penal Code, 32 S. Cal. L. Rev. 50 (1958).
Note, The New Al Capone Laws and the Double Jeopardy Implications of Taxing Illegal Drugs, 4 S. Cal. Interdisciplinary L.J. 323 (1995).
Comment, McMullin’s Double Jeopardy Protection May Be a Casualty of South Carolina’s War on Drugs, 48 S. C. L. Rev. 405 (1997).
Comment, Halper, Austin, and Kurth Ranch: Can Illinois’ Summary Suspension Statute Withstand the Double Jeopardy Clause Challenges in Light of the Recent Decisions of the United States Supreme Court, 21 S. Ill. U. L.J. 149 (1996).
Note, The Protection from Multiple Trials, 11 Stan. L. Rev. 735 (1959).
Note, Up in Smoke: The Texas Controlled Substances Act, 28 Tex. Tech L. Rev. 923 (1997).
Note, The Double Jeopardy Clause: Refining the Constitutional Proscription Against Successive Prosecutions, 19 UCLA L. Rev. 804 (1972).
Note, Multiple Prosecutions and Punishments Under RICO: A Chip Off the Old “Blockburger,” 52 U. Cin. L. Rev. 467 (1983).
Comment, Single Sentence on Multiple-Count Indictment—Conspiracy and Double Jeopardy, 17 U. Cin. L. Rev. 79 (1948).
Case Note, Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 73 U. Det. Mercy L. Rev. 117 (1995).
Case Comment, Constitutional Law: Taxation of Contraband and Expansion of the Double Jeopardy Clause, Department of Revenue of Montana v. Kurth Ranch, 7 U. Fla. J.L and Pub. Pol’y 385 (1996).
Comment, The Decisive Blow to the Double Jeopardy Defenses in Kansas Drunk Driving Prosecutions: State v. Mertz, 44 U. Kan. L. Rev. 1009 (1996).
Comment, Scorched Earth: How the Expansion of Civil Forfeiture Has Laid Waste to Due Process, 45 U. Miami L. Rev. 911 (1991).
Comment, The Foreclosure of Double Jeopardy in Administrative License Suspensions and Civil Asset Forfeitures Following United States v. Ursery, 65 UMKC L. Rev. 104 (1996).
Note, Matching Tests for Double Jeopardy Violations with Constitutional Interests, 45 Vand. L. Rev. 273 (1991).
Note, Commonwealth Right of Appeal, 43 Wash. & Lee L. Rev. 295 (1986).
Note and Comment, Crime and Punishment and Punishment: Civil Forfeiture, Double Jeopardy and the War on Drugs, 71 Wash. L. Rev. 489 (1996).
Enlarging the Sargasso Sea of Double Jeopardy: Department of Revenue v. Kurth Ranch, 17 Whittier L. Rev. 477 (1996).
Annual Survey, Sweeney v. State Board of Funeral Directors: The Commonwealth Court Holds that Double Jeopardy Challenges to License Revocations by Administrative Agencies Are Subject to Halper Analysis, 5 Widener J. Pub. L. 809 (1996).
Note, Popular Sovereignty, Double Jeopardy, and the Dual Sovereignty Doctrine, 102 Yale L.J. 281 (1992).
Note, The Double Jeopardy Clause as a Bar to Reintroducing Evidence, 89 Yale L.J. 962 (1980).
Comment, Twice in Jeopardy, 75 Yale L.J. 262 (1965).
Note, Consecutive Sentences in Single Prosecutions: Judicial Multiplication of Statutory Penalties, 67 Yale L.J. 916 (1958).
Note, Statutory Implementation of Double Jeopardy Clauses: New Life for a Moribund Constitutional Guarantee, 65 Yale L.J. 339 (1956).
Note, Double Jeopardy and the Multiple-Count Indictment, 57 Yale L.J. 132 (1947).