Abstract
In 2018, the Supreme Court issued a little noticed decision, Currier v. Virginia, that signaled a potential revolution in the Double Jeopardy Clause doctrine. This essay uses that decision to reconsider the Clause’s disparate protections, seeking coherence in this long-confused area of law. In doing so, it finds that the central protections of the Clause are best understood through a single, novel framework: the jury-preservation theory of double jeopardy. This essay explicates the theory, explaining its roots in the Revolutionary Era jury, its applications to modern double jeopardy law, and its implications for Currier and future double jeopardy cases.
Sign-in/Register to access full text options 
Talk to us
Join us for a 30 min session where you can share your feedback and ask us any queries you have
Schedule a call
