In the United States v. Debrow case of 1953, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can be tried separately for perjury and conspiracy to commit perjury. The defendants, Samuel Debrow and others, were initially indicted on two counts: one for conspiring to make false statements before a grand jury and another for actually making those false statements (perjury). They argued that this constituted double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same crime - which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice Sherman Minton, the court held that each count required proof of different facts and thus they were separate offenses under Blockburger v. United States' "same-elements" test. Therefore it did not violate their protection against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Debrow, it was argued that the defendants were not adequately informed of their rights before making statements to a grand jury, which later led to their indictment. The dissenting justices believed this violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. They contended that any person called before a grand jury should be clearly informed of his or her right to refuse answering questions on grounds they may incriminate him or her and without such warning, any subsequent indictment based on those answers should be dismissed. This view held that an individual’s constitutional rights are paramount and must always be upheld in all stages of legal proceedings.