In the case of Arizona et al. v. Washington, 1977, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge's declaration of mistrial without obtaining defendant's consent did not violate his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy when "manifest necessity" warranted such action. The case arose from an incident where a man was charged with assault and robbery in Washington state but during the trial, one juror expressed doubts about her ability to be impartial due to media coverage she had seen on television regarding another crime committed by someone who resembled the defendant. Despite attempts at admonishing and instructing jurors to disregard any outside information or personal biases, it became clear that this particular juror could not remain unbiased so a mistrial was declared by the judge without consulting with defense counsel first which led them to appeal arguing their client’s rights were violated under Double Jeopardy Clause since he would essentially be tried twice for same offense if retried after mistrial ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for Arizona et al. v. Washington, Justice William Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn a state court ruling that had upheld an individual's conviction despite procedural errors in his trial. He argued that while it is important to ensure fair trials and protect defendants' rights, this should not come at the expense of ignoring or minimizing other significant aspects of criminal proceedings such as evidence presented against accused individuals. In this case, he believed there was overwhelming evidence supporting the defendant’s guilt which outweighed any potential prejudice caused by procedural mistakes during trial. Therefore, he opined that these errors did not warrant reversal of conviction and retrial.