The double jeopardy clause of the fifth amendment to the U.S. Constitution protects defendants from multiple prosecutions and sentences for the same offense. However, the double jeopardy clause does not usually preclude the retrial of defendants whose original convictions were set aside because of trial error. Additionally, the U.S. Supreme Court and Federal circuit courts of appeals have held that defendants who have not fully satisfied their sentences may be retried without violating the double jeopardy clause. In a recent case, Fitzgerald v. United States, the D.C. Court of Appeals expanded the exceptions permitted under the double jeopardy clause. Defendant Fitzgerald was convicted of a crime and began to serve his sentence. While serving the sentence, he appealed the conviction, alleging judicial error. While the appeal was pending, the defendant completed his sentence and was unconditionally paroled. Two months after the defendant's release, the D.C. Court of Appeals granted the appeal and remanded the case for retrial. The defendant claimed under the double jeopardy clause that he could not be retried for a crime for which he had already served the sentence. He moved for a dismissal. The D.C. Court of Appeals denied the defendant's motion, asserting that public policy considerations justified a retrial to determine whether he was guilty of the crime. The Fitzgerald case may mark the beginning of a trend in which courts will focus less on the issue of double punishment and more on the significance of a conviction. To protect society from career criminals, it is important to publicly record a criminal's guilt or innocence. Establishing that will override technical claims of double jeopardy. 71 footnotes.