In the case of Ohio v. Johnson in 1983, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's plea of guilty to lesser charges did not prevent prosecution on more serious charges related to the same crime. The court held that this did not violate double jeopardy protections under the Fifth Amendment because each charge required proof of different elements and thus constituted separate offenses for purposes of double jeopardy analysis. In this case, Johnson had pleaded guilty to involuntary manslaughter and grand theft but was later indicted for murder and aggravated robbery based on his involvement in a fatal shooting during a robbery attempt.

In the dissenting opinion for Ohio v. Johnson, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a defendant's right to plead guilty to lesser charges while still being tried on more serious ones contradicted established principles of double jeopardy. The dissenting justices believed that once a court accepts a plea agreement and convicts on some counts, this should bar further prosecution on remaining counts arising from the same criminal episode. They contended that accepting such pleas effectively resolves all charges in one proceeding, thus subsequent trials would constitute double jeopardy. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential prosecutorial manipulation if prosecutors could continue pursuing additional charges after securing convictions through plea agreements.