In the United States v. Behrens case of 1963, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving federal jurisdiction over crimes committed in foreign countries by U.S. citizens. The defendant, Behrens, was charged with embezzlement while working for an American company in Germany and subsequently fled to Mexico before being extradited back to the U.S. He argued that his extradition from Mexico violated international law because he had not been formally indicted at the time of his arrest and extradition request. The court held that since there was no requirement under Mexican or international law for a formal indictment prior to extradition, no violation occurred when Behrens was arrested without one. Furthermore, it found that even if such a requirement did exist under Mexican law (which it didn't), this would be irrelevant as long as US laws were followed during proceedings within its own jurisdiction. Therefore, despite having committed his alleged crime overseas and being extradited from another country entirely - neither factor prevented him from facing charges in America due to both national sovereignty principles and specific statutory provisions allowing prosecution of certain offenses carried out abroad by US nationals.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Behrens, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision to allow a second appeal in this case was inconsistent with previous rulings of the Court and could potentially lead to an abuse of process by defendants seeking to delay proceedings indefinitely through repeated appeals. He pointed out that under normal circumstances, a defendant is only allowed one interlocutory appeal before trial - any further appeals should be made after conviction or acquittal. In this case, however, Behrens had already appealed once on grounds of immunity from prosecution and was now attempting a second appeal based on lack of probable cause for his arrest. While acknowledging that there may be exceptional cases where multiple pretrial appeals are necessary due to significant legal issues at stake, Douglas did not believe this was such a case and warned against setting a precedent which could undermine efficient judicial administration.