In the United States v. Broce et al., 1988, the Supreme Court ruled that defendants who plead guilty to an indictment cannot later claim that they were actually charged with two separate offenses and thus their double jeopardy rights were violated. The case involved a construction company and its owners who pleaded guilty to bid-rigging charges without any plea agreement or promises from the government. Later, they tried to argue that each count of the indictment was for a separate conspiracy when in fact there was only one overall conspiracy, which would mean their convictions violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of Fifth Amendment (which prevents someone from being prosecuted twice for substantially same crime). However, by pleading guilty unconditionally as they did, they admitted guilt to all factual elements of charge brought against them and waived right to challenge those facts on appeal.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Broce et al., Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that the majority's decision to bar habeas corpus review of guilty pleas was too broad. They contended that a defendant who pleads guilty does not necessarily admit guilt to every factual allegation in an indictment but only admits guilt sufficient to warrant punishment. The dissent also criticized the majority for failing to distinguish between different types of double jeopardy claims: those based on facts not admitted at plea and those based on legal insufficiency arguments which could be raised after a guilty plea without contradicting it. Furthermore, they believed that defendants should have been allowed an opportunity to show their pleas were unknowingly made if they can prove they did not understand their rights or consequences of pleading guilty due to ineffective counsel or other reasons.