The Court chose to keep the doctrine separating the conspiracy to commit the crime from the commission of the crime itself, distinct from the line of cases developing various tests to determine when a double jeopardy violation occurs. In doing so, the Court relied solely on the longstanding rule of precedent determining that the conspiracy and the crime are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes. In contrast, the Court struggles to interpret the relationship between other offenses for double jeopardy purposes through a series of unworkable tests. This result is an inconsistent method of determining which offenses are forbidden from prosecution. These inadequacies will undoubtedly lead to additional double jeopardy conflict requiring resolution by the Supreme Court. Footnotes