But here the State did not engage in any multiple prosecutions; on the contrary it prosecuted its charges in a single trial and the fact that, in the course of that single trial, some of its charges were dismissed, did not in any sense entail any of the harassment and oppression incident to multiple prosecutions or furnish any just basis for the plea of double jeopardy. See United States v.Klein, 247 F.2d 908 (2 Cir. 1957); United States v.Nickerson, 211 F.2d 909 (7 Cir. 1954); Barsock v. UnitedStates, 177 F.2d 141 (9 Cir. 1949); People v. Dreyer, 71 Cal.App.2d 181, 162 P.2d 468 (1945); Elstun v.People, 104 Colo. 302, 91 P.2d 487 (1939); Crane v.People, 91 Colo. 21, 11 P.2d 567 (1932); State v.Phillips, 136 Kan. 407, 15 P.2d 408 (1932); People v.Savarese, 1 N.Y. Misc.2 d 305, 114 N.Y.S.2d 816 ( Cty.Ct. 1952); People v. Manuel, 113 N.Y.S.2d 415 ( Cty. Ct. 1952). In the Barsock case the defendant was charged with murder in an indictment which contained two counts; during the course of his trial the second count was dismissed and he was convicted on the first count and sentenced to life imprisonment.