In Burns v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot impose multiple punishments for the same offense in violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. The case involved an individual named William Burns who was convicted and sentenced twice by Ohio courts for stealing money from a gas station attendant - once for robbery and again for larceny (theft). He appealed his second conviction on grounds that it violated his constitutional protection against double jeopardy, which prohibits being tried or punished more than once for the same crime. The Supreme Court agreed with Burns, ruling 6-3 in his favor. It held that both charges stemmed from one act – taking money unlawfully – so they constituted one offense under law despite being labeled differently by prosecutors.

In the dissenting opinion for Burns v. Ohio, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's interpretation of double jeopardy protections under the Fifth Amendment. He argued that a defendant could be retried if their conviction was overturned on appeal because they had not been "in jeopardy" in the first trial due to legal errors or irregularities. In his view, this did not constitute multiple prosecutions for the same offense but rather one continuous prosecution until a valid verdict was reached. Furthermore, he contended that allowing retrials after successful appeals would serve public interest by ensuring accurate and just outcomes in criminal cases while respecting defendants' rights against double jeopardy.