In the United States v. Braverman case of 1962, the Supreme Court ruled that a single agreement to commit multiple crimes constitutes one conspiracy, not several. The defendants were charged with conspiring to defraud the U.S government by evading taxes and committing other offenses against internal revenue laws. They argued that each offense should be considered as separate conspiracies rather than one overarching conspiracy. However, their argument was rejected by the court which held that an agreement forming part of a larger plan does not become multiple agreements because it envisions commission of several crimes in its execution. Therefore, even though they committed various illegal acts under this agreement, they could only be punished for one count of conspiracy since all these actions stemmed from a single collaborative plan.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Braverman, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy. He contended that a single agreement to commit multiple crimes should be treated as one offense, not several separate ones. According to him, charging and punishing an individual separately for each crime planned within a single conspiracy is equivalent to punishing them multiple times for the same offense - which contradicts constitutional protections against double jeopardy. Furthermore, he expressed concern about prosecutorial discretion in deciding how many charges could be brought based on a single criminal agreement; this could potentially lead to arbitrary or discriminatory enforcement of laws.