In the United States v. Scott case of 1977, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy was not violated when his trial ended in mistrial due to his own request for it, even if there was insufficient evidence to convict him. The court held that since the defendant himself moved for a mistrial, he could not claim protection under the Double Jeopardy Clause if prosecution sought retrial. This ruling clarified that protections against double jeopardy are primarily meant to shield defendants from repeated prosecutions by government and do not extend fully when defendants themselves seek termination of proceedings before verdicts are reached.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Scott, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to allow a defendant's successful motion to dismiss charges on grounds not related to guilt or innocence as an acquittal was incorrect and inconsistent with previous rulings. He stated that this interpretation of the Double Jeopardy Clause would lead to absurd results where defendants could manipulate proceedings in their favor by deliberately seeking dismissal on non-merits grounds, then claiming double jeopardy protection if they were unsuccessful. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that midtrial dismissals should be treated differently from pretrial ones under double jeopardy analysis. Instead, he believed both types of dismissals should be evaluated based on whether they represented resolutions of some or all elements of charged offenses rather than procedural issues unrelated to factual guilt or innocence.