In Bozza v. United States (1946), the Supreme Court ruled that a court could correct an illegal sentence without violating the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prevents anyone from being prosecuted twice for substantially the same crime. The petitioner, Angelo Bozza, was initially sentenced to imprisonment and fined for his crimes but was not ordered to pay mandatory costs as required by law. When he was later summoned back to court and these costs were added onto his sentence, he argued this constituted double jeopardy. However, in a unanimous decision authored by Justice Stanley Reed, it held that correcting an error in sentencing does not amount to punishing someone twice for the same offense; rather it simply ensures they receive what their original punishment should have been under law.

In the dissenting opinion for Bozza v. United States, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the defendant's rights under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment were violated when he was resentenced to include a mandatory fine after initially receiving only imprisonment. He contended that once a sentence has been imposed and begun, it cannot be increased regardless of any statutory requirements or oversights in initial sentencing. The imposition of an additional penalty constitutes double jeopardy according to his interpretation of constitutional law. Furthermore, he asserted that correcting such errors should not infringe upon individual liberties protected by this clause; instead, they should be prevented through careful adherence to legal procedures during sentencing.