In the case of Currier v. Virginia, Michael Currier was charged with burglary and grand larceny as well as being a felon in possession of a firearm. To avoid potential prejudice from the jury, he agreed to sever his trials for the burglary charges and firearms charge. After being acquitted on the first two charges, he sought to prevent his second trial arguing that it would violate double jeopardy protections since they relied on evidence from his previous trial. The Supreme Court ruled 5-4 against him stating that because he consented to having separate trials, this did not infringe upon his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy - which prevents an individual from being tried twice for the same crime after acquittal or conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Currier v. Virginia, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision undermined both fairness and efficiency in criminal trials. She disagreed with their interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause, asserting that it should protect defendants from multiple prosecutions for a single offense even if they consent to separate trials on related charges. According to her view, this protection is necessary because successive prosecutions can be used as a tool of harassment and oppression by prosecutors who are unsatisfied with an initial verdict or want to wear down a defendant’s resources. Furthermore, she contended that allowing multiple trials increases costs and wastes judicial resources without providing any clear benefits in terms of accuracy or justice.