In the case of United States v. Kopp, 1976, the Supreme Court had to decide whether a defendant could be convicted for conspiracy to commit an offense against the United States when he was acquitted on substantive charges related to that same offense. The defendant, James Charles Kopp, was charged with both conspiring and attempting to defraud the U.S government by submitting false claims for veterans' benefits. He was acquitted on all counts except one - conspiracy - which led him to appeal his conviction arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the government stating that acquittal on substantive charges does not preclude prosecution or conviction for conspiracy if there is sufficient evidence supporting such a charge independently from those related offenses. This ruling affirmed that each count in an indictment is regarded as a separate offense legally distinct from any other count; thus being cleared of one crime doesn't necessarily absolve someone from another even if they are closely linked.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Kopp case argued that the majority's decision to uphold Kopp's conviction for conspiracy to defraud the United States was incorrect because it failed to consider whether there was sufficient evidence of a specific intent to defraud. The dissent pointed out that while Kopp may have intended to deceive or cheat, this does not necessarily equate with an intention to defraud, which requires proof of a plan designed specifically for financial gain through deceitful or fraudulent means. Furthermore, they contended that even if such intent could be inferred from his actions and statements, these were ambiguous at best and did not provide clear evidence of criminal intent as required by law. They also criticized the majority’s reliance on circumstantial evidence and its failure to apply strict scrutiny in assessing whether there was enough direct evidence linking him with any alleged conspiracy plot against government interests.