United States v. Felix
1992 United States Supreme Court case
United States v. Felix, 503 U.S. 378 (1992), was a decision by the United States Supreme Court, which held that "a[n]…offense and a conspiracy to commit that offense are not the same offense for double jeopardy purposes." The Supreme Court rejected the Tenth Circuit's reversal of Felix's conviction, finding that the Court of Appeals read the holding in Grady v. Corbin (1990) too broadly.
Facts and procedural history
In the spring of 1987, the defendant Frank Felix was illegally manufacturing methamphetamine in his Oklahoma facility. The facility was raided and shut down by federal agents in July of the same year where they found and seized precursor materials for methamphetamine production. While still a free man, Felix was arrested a month later by DEA agents conducting an operation in Joplin, Missouri where he was arrested with chemicals and equipment consistently used in the production of methamphetamine. Subsequently, Felix was charged in the United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri and was indicted for attempting to manufacture a controlled substance. At trial Felix presented the defense that "he never had criminal intent, but had the mistaken belief that he was working in a covert DEA operation." Prosecutors then presented evidence of prior acts committed by Felix in Oklahoma to counter his defense. Prosecutors introduced the evidence of the methamphetamine labs from Oklahoma, and the jury convicted Felix for those crimes.
Subsequently, in 1989, the government filed an eleven-count indictment in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Oklahoma against Felix and other parties for his role in the methamphetamine labs in Oklahoma.
Begin with the source’s own compact description: “United States v. Felix” is 1992 United States Supreme Court case. The dossier treats that line as a proposition to test through United, States and Felix, not as a finished interpretation.
Why this record matters
The phrase “1992 United States Supreme Court case” supplies a clear boundary for inquiry. It also exposes the unanswered questions: who defined that boundary, when it became stable and which sources sit outside it.
The citation trail is more important than the brevity of the summary: it shows where individual claims can be examined in context. The source revision retrieved here is dated Apr 27, 2026. The linked authority identifier is Q7893281. None of the 1 selected statements returned an explicit reference. The first chronological checks are 1992, 1990, 1987 and 1989.
The absence of detail may reflect summary conventions rather than a lack of surviving documentation. The lead is largely declarative, so disagreement and counter-evidence require a deliberate search beyond the opening account. Authority statements aid reconciliation but still require their own references, qualifiers and ranks to be checked.
How to read it
Use the entry as an orientation point, then follow its citations and revision history. Names, dates and institutional relationships should be checked against the original record.
- Subject orientation
- Search vocabulary
- Locating named sources
The closest primary source, responsible institution and strongest cited specialist reference.
Three-step research path
- Establish the record: confirm the title “United States v. Felix”, its source revision and the description used here.
- Expand the search: follow United States v. Felix primary sources, United States v. Felix archive and United research across catalogues and specialist indexes.
- Test the account: compare the strongest cited source with the responsible institution’s current record and note any disagreement.
Questions for further research
- Which source most directly establishes the central claim about “United States v. Felix”?
- Which cited source is closest to the event, object or claim?
- What terminology or title could unlock a more precise catalogue search?
Search terms from this dossier
This entry incorporates text from “United States v. Felix” on English Wikipedia. Contributors are listed in the page history. Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike 4.0 License. Selected authority identifiers and statements are retrieved from Wikidata under CC0; their references and qualifiers remain part of the verification path.