In United States v. Dinitz, 424 U.S. at 611, 96 S. Ct. at 1081, 47 L. Ed. 2d at 276, the United States Supreme Court said as much. Specifically, the Court concluded that the double jeopardy clause "protects a defendant against governmental actions intended to provoke mistrial requests," thereby subjecting defendants "to the substantial burdens imposed by multiple prosecutions." Ibid. However, the Court went on to say that "bad faith conduct by judge or prosecutor . . . threatens the 'harassment of an accused by successive prosecutions or declaration of a mistrial so as to afford the prosecution a more favorable opportunity to convict.'" Ibid. That language appeared to broaden the reach of the double jeopardy clause to bar a retrial where the prosecutor's bad faith conduct resulted in a mistrial.