In the United States v. Jorn case of 1970, the Supreme Court ruled that a mistrial declared by a judge without the defendant's consent or any "manifest necessity" violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case involved Harold Jorn, who was charged with assisting in preparing false income tax returns. During trial, it became apparent that some witnesses were not adequately informed about their rights before giving statements to IRS agents. Concerned for these witnesses' rights and believing they needed counsel present during questioning, Judge Boldt declared a mistrial without consulting either party involved in litigation nor considering less drastic alternatives to protect witness rights while preserving Jorn's right against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Jorn, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to apply a broad interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause was incorrect and could potentially lead to unnecessary restrictions on retrials. He contended that there should be more flexibility in allowing retrials when they are needed due to unforeseen circumstances or errors during trial proceedings. According to him, such an approach would better balance defendants' rights with society's interest in fair trials and justice administration. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that mistrial declarations should only occur under urgent circumstances; instead, he believed judges should have discretion based on their assessment of each case's unique situation.