In United States v. Felix, the United States Supreme Court held that the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment does not bar the prosecution of substantive drug offenses when the evidence used for such prosecution was introduced in prior prosecution of the same defendant for different, but related, offenses. To bolster its ruling on this issue, the Court relied on Dowling v. United States to find that introduction of relevant evidence of previously prosecuted misconduct is not the same as prosecution for that conduct. This Note argues that the Court correctly allowed prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause, but that the Court's analysis failed to rectify the controversy created by its holding in Grady v. Corbin. This Note further argues that the majority's rule failed to clarify the relevance of the Grady same conduct test, and proposes that the majority rule cannot provide defendants with sufficient constitutional protection. Footnotes