In the case of Martinez v. Illinois, Esteban Martinez was charged with two counts of aggravated battery and one count of mob action in 2006. However, his trial did not begin until 2010 due to multiple delays caused by absent prosecution witnesses. When the trial finally began, none of the state's witnesses were present leading the prosecutor to refuse to participate further in proceedings or introduce any evidence against Martinez. The judge then granted a directed verdict for acquittal on all charges based on lack of evidence from prosecution side. Martinez later filed a federal lawsuit arguing that he had been denied his constitutional right to a speedy trial and sought damages under Section 1983 (a civil rights law). The Supreme Court ruled unanimously in favor of Martinez stating that once jury is sworn in, jeopardy attaches immediately regardless if any witness testimony or evidence has been presented by prosecutors; hence double jeopardy clause prevents retrial after court-directed acquittal even when it occurs before any evidence is introduced.

The dissenting opinion in the Martinez v. Illinois case argued that the trial court's decision to acquit Martinez should not have been overturned by higher courts because it was based on a valid interpretation of state law. The dissenters believed that when prosecutors chose not to present any evidence at trial, they effectively abandoned their case against Martinez, which justified his acquittal under Illinois law. They also disagreed with the majority's view that jeopardy had not attached in this case, arguing instead that jeopardy attaches whenever a jury is empaneled and sworn in, regardless of whether or not evidence is presented. Therefore, they contended that double jeopardy protections barred retrial after an acquittal based on no evidence being presented.