In the case of Crist, Warden, et al. v. Bretz et al., 1977, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter regarding double jeopardy protections under the Fifth Amendment. The defendants were charged with conspiracy to commit robbery in Montana state court and acquitted by a jury trial. Subsequently, they were indicted for federal bank robbery charges arising from the same incident which led to their initial prosecution at state level. They appealed this second indictment arguing it violated their protection against double jeopardy as provided by the Fifth Amendment. The Supreme Court held that an individual's right against being placed in "jeopardy" begins when a jury is empaneled and sworn in; thus any subsequent prosecution would violate this constitutional protection if based on identical offenses or facts already tried before another tribunal (in this case - State). Therefore, even though one was a state charge and other was federal charge both stemming from same event(s), it constituted 'double jeopardy'. This ruling clarified that dual sovereignty doctrine does not apply within states themselves i.e., between different levels of courts within same jurisdiction.

In the dissenting opinion for Crist v. Bretz, Justice Powell argued that the majority's decision to apply a federal rule of double jeopardy in state courts was an unnecessary intrusion into states' rights. He contended that there was no compelling reason to impose this uniformity on all states and it would be more appropriate for each state to develop its own rules regarding when jeopardy attaches in a trial. Furthermore, he expressed concern over the potential implications of such imposition on other areas of criminal procedure where federal and state practices diverge significantly. In his view, this could lead to further unwarranted intrusions into traditional areas of state responsibility.