TWO MAJOR QUESTIONS ARE INVESTIGATED IN THIS NOTE. FIRST, THE AUTHOR INVESTIGATES WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S RIGHTS UNDER THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY OR DUE PROCESS CLAUSES ARE VIOLATED IF THE STATE HOLDS TWO INQUIRIES INTO THE ALLEGED CRIMINAL ACT. SECOND, THE AUTHOR DISCUSSES WHETHER THE DEFENDANT'S PRIVILEGE AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION IS ABRIDGED IF THE REVOCATION HEARING IS HELD BEFORE THE CRIMINAL TRIAL. THE AUTHOR CONCLUDES THAT THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY CLAUSE DOES NOT REQUIRE THE STATES TO ABANDON ALTOGETHER THE USE OF THE DUAL PROCEEDINGS IN THE CONDITIONAL LIBERTY CONTEXT. ON THE OTHER HAND, HE STATES THAT SOME OF THE DOUBLE JEOPARDY INTERESTS INFRINGED BY HOLDING DUAL PROCEEDINGS MIGHT STILL BE PROTECTED BY THE DUE PROCESS CLAUSE. IT IS NOTED THAT THE DEFENDANT MAY SUFFER SEVERAL POSSIBLE INFRINGEMENTS ON HIS RIGHT AGAINST SELF-INCRIMINATION BY BEING SUBJECTED TO DUAL PROCEEDINGS. THE AUTHOR SUGGESTS THAT THE STATE ACCORD THE DEFENDANT AT A REVOCATION HEARING USE IMMUNITY FOR ALL TESTIMONY AND EVIDENCE HE PRESENTS, THUS ASSURING THAT NONE OF THIS EVIDENCE CAN BE UTILIZED BY THE STATE IN SUBSEQUENT CRIMINAL PROCEEDINGS. THIS WOULD FURTHER THE STATE'S INTEREST IN ENSURING JUST REVOCATION HEARINGS BY ENCOURAGING THE FULL PARTICIPATION OF DEFENDANTS IN REVOCATION PROCEEDINGS. (AUTHOR ABSTRACT MODIFIED)