Legal Definitions - same-transaction test

The same-transaction test is a legal principle that was proposed, but ultimately never adopted, in U.S. criminal law. It was designed as a potential safeguard against double jeopardy, which protects individuals from being tried or punished twice for the same offense.

Under this proposed test, if the government decided to prosecute an individual for a crime, it would have been legally required to bring *all* potential charges arising from a single, continuous criminal incident or "transaction" in that *one* prosecution. The core idea was to prevent the government from pursuing multiple, sequential trials for different offenses that were closely linked in time and circumstance, ensuring that a defendant faced all related accusations at once.

Here are some examples illustrating how the same-transaction test would have applied:

• Scenario: Robbery with collateral crimes
  Imagine an individual who robs a bank, and during the course of the robbery, they also assault a security guard and then steal a getaway car parked outside. If the same-transaction test had been adopted, the government would have been compelled to bring charges for bank robbery, assault, and grand theft auto all together in a single trial. It could not have prosecuted the individual for robbery first, and then, if acquitted or convicted, later pursue separate charges for the assault or car theft, because all these actions occurred as part of one continuous criminal incident.

• Scenario: Arson causing multiple harms
  Consider a person who intentionally sets fire to a commercial building. The fire not only causes extensive property damage to the structure but also results in severe burns to an employee working late. Under the proposed same-transaction test, prosecutors would have been required to include all charges related to the arson—such as arson itself, destruction of property, and assault or battery (due to the injuries caused)—in one comprehensive prosecution. They could not have tried the defendant for arson and property damage in one trial, and then later initiated a separate trial for the injuries sustained by the employee, as all these offenses stemmed from the single act of setting the fire.

• Scenario: Drug deal with related offenses
  Suppose an individual arranges and executes a single, large-scale drug transaction, and immediately afterward, uses the proceeds from that specific deal to purchase a luxury item to launder the money. If the same-transaction test were law, the government would have had to prosecute the individual for drug trafficking and money laundering all within the same legal proceeding. It would have been prohibited from trying the drug trafficking charges first and then, in a separate trial, pursuing charges for the related money laundering, because both activities were integral parts of the same criminal "transaction" or enterprise.