In the 1997 case of Kevin D. Gray v. Maryland, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to double jeopardy and collateral estoppel in criminal proceedings. The petitioner, Kevin D. Gray was initially acquitted on charges of first-degree murder but convicted for use of a handgun during a crime of violence based on the same evidence presented at trial. Later, he was retried and convicted for second-degree murder arising from the same incident which led to his initial acquittal. He appealed this conviction arguing that it violated principles against double jeopardy as well as collateral estoppel because he had already been acquitted once using similar evidence. The Supreme Court held that there was no violation since each charge required proof of different elements - while first degree murder required premeditation, second degree did not; hence they were distinct offenses under law despite being part of one act or transaction. Moreover, it ruled that collateral estoppel didn't apply here because an acquittal doesn't necessarily mean all facts relevant to offense have been resolved in defendant's favor; rather only those necessary for verdict are conclusively determined by prior adjudication.

In the dissenting opinion for Kevin D. Gray v. Maryland, Justice Scalia disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a dual prosecution by both federal and state governments on grounds of sovereign immunity. He argued that this violated the Double Jeopardy Clause in the Fifth Amendment which protects individuals from being prosecuted twice for the same crime. According to him, it was not intended by framers of constitution that two separate sovereignties could prosecute an individual separately for identical offenses without violating double jeopardy protections. He also criticized how previous cases were interpreted and applied in this case, stating they had been misread or misunderstood by other justices leading them to incorrect conclusions about their implications on sovereignty and double jeopardy issues.