In Standefer v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant could be convicted of aiding and abetting in a crime even if the principal was acquitted of committing the crime itself. The case involved Harry Standefer who had been charged with aiding and abetting an Internal Revenue Service agent in accepting unlawful compensation. The IRS agent was acquitted on charges related to this compensation but Standefer was still prosecuted for his role as an accomplice. He appealed, arguing that he should not be found guilty when the person he allegedly aided had been found innocent. However, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that consistency between verdicts is not necessary because each trial is independent from one another due to different evidence or witnesses presented at each trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Standefer v. United States, Justice Lewis F. Powell Jr., joined by Justices Brennan and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision undermined a fundamental principle of justice: consistency in verdicts. They contended that allowing inconsistent verdicts would erode public confidence in the judicial system and could lead to arbitrary results. The dissenters also pointed out that inconsistency might be due to jury error or compromise rather than a careful evaluation of evidence, which is not desirable from a legal standpoint. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on non-mutual collateral estoppel (a legal doctrine preventing an issue already decided between two parties being re-litigated), arguing it should apply even when used against the government as it promotes fairness and respect for court judgments.