In the United States v. Frank Dennis Felix case of 1991, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can be prosecuted in federal court for conduct that had been part of an earlier dismissed indictment if it is included as part of a broader conspiracy charge. The decision was based on the interpretation of double jeopardy laws which protect defendants from being tried twice for the same crime. In this case, Felix had initially been indicted and convicted on drug charges but those convictions were overturned due to procedural errors by prosecutors. Later, he was charged again with conspiracy to manufacture and distribute methamphetamine - crimes which encompassed his previous charges as well as additional criminal activities related to drug trafficking. Despite Felix's argument that these new charges constituted double jeopardy, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that each separate illegal agreement could constitute a different offense even if some or all acts are also alleged in another count.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Felix, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment by allowing Felix to be prosecuted twice for essentially identical crimes. He contended that a conspiracy charge and substantive offense are not separate offenses if they involve exactly same conduct; thus, prosecuting both is double jeopardy. Furthermore, he criticized how broadly "conspiracy" was defined in this case as it could lead to abuse of prosecutorial discretion and multiple prosecutions for single criminal episode. The justice also expressed concern about potential erosion of protections against double jeopardy due to broad interpretation of 'same offence' concept.