United States v. Broce
United States Supreme Court
488 U.S. 563 (1989)
Broce and his construction company (defendants) pleaded guilty to two separate counts of bid-rigging conspiracy under the Sherman Antitrust Act; after learning that a similarly situated defendant, Beachner, had successfully argued in separate litigation that his later bid-rigging charges were part of the same conspiracy for which he had already been acquitted (triggering double jeopardy protection), Broce sought to raise the same argument, claiming his two guilty-plea convictions actually involved only a single conspiracy. Broce submitted an affidavit stating his attorney never discussed a potential double jeopardy defense with him before he pleaded guilty.
Whether a defendant who validly pleads guilty to separate charges relinquishes his right to later raise a double jeopardy defense against those charges, even if he was unaware of the defense's availability at the time of his plea.