Adjuidication Function 535980

The U.S. Supreme Court’s interpretation of the scope of federal double jeopardy clause is binding on the states (i.e., the states must provide at least as much constitutional protection as does the federal government). Second, a state is free to afford more protection to a defendant under its own constitutional provision. Why might a state want to include its own state protection of rights that are already guaranteed by the federal constitution? Why might a state want to strengthen those rights?