In the case of Illinois v. Somerville, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in 1972 that a mistrial could be declared if there was "manifest necessity" for it, even if this meant potentially violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment which protects against being tried twice for the same crime. The case arose when William Somerville was charged with theft and his trial ended in a mistrial due to an error in indictment language that would have rendered any verdict reversible on appeal. When he was re-indicted and retried, he claimed double jeopardy protection but both state courts and ultimately, by a 5-4 decision, Supreme Court disagreed stating that manifest necessity justified declaring a mistrial as continuing with flawed proceedings risked injustice.

In the dissenting opinion for Illinois v. Somerville, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a retrial after a mistrial was declared violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. He contended that there were no "manifest necessity" or compelling reasons for declaring a mistrial in this case as required by precedent to justify overriding double jeopardy protections. The prosecution had ample opportunity to correct its error before trial but failed to do so and should not be allowed another chance at conviction due simply to their own mistake or oversight, according to Douglas' view. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse of power by prosecutors who might deliberately provoke mistrials in order gain additional opportunities for securing convictions.