104-132, 110 Stat. 1214 (1996). 6 . The Double Jeopardy Clause provides that "[n]o person shall ... be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb.” U.S. Const, amend. V. It protects a defendant from being prosecuted a second time for the same offense after being acquitted of that offense; it also pro . The primacy of legislative intent in this analysis is a reflection of the principle that “the Fifth Amendment double jeopardy guarantee serves principally as a restraint on courts and prosecutors” and that "[t]he legislature remains free under the Double Jeopardy Clause to define crimes and fix punishments.” Brown v. Ohio, 432 U.S. 161, 165, 97 S.Ct. 2221, 53 L.Ed.2d 187 (1977). 9 . See Early v. Packer, 537 U.S. 3, 8, 123 S.Ct. 362, 154 L.Ed.2d 263 (2002) (<HOLDING>). 10 . Cf. Martin v. Commonwealth, 242 Va. 1,
holding that to pass muster under the contrary to prong a state court need not cite relevant supreme court precedent or even be aware of relevant cases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them holding aedpas contrary to clause does not require citation of our cases indeed it does not even require awareness of our eases so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them holding that state courts failure to discuss or even to be aware of federal precedent does not in itself render the decision contrary to federal law recognizing that a failure to cite supreme court decisions does not itself suggest a state court decision is contrary to such precedents   so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them  holding that failure to cite federal law does not mean that state court decision was contrary to established federal law state court need not even be aware of supreme court precedents so long as neither the reasoning nor the result of the statecourt decision contradicts them