As discussed in the previous post, the four dissenters in Robertson believe that criminal prosecutions must be brought in the name of the sovereign. Do the five in the majority believe the contrary? Not necessarily. The Solicitor General's brief explains why, in the particular circumstances of this case, the result of the case does not necessarily turn on the answer to the question framed by the Court. My previous post assumed for the purpose of explaining Roberts' opinion that the plea bargain would prohibit a prosecution in the name of the government, but that point is disputed.