In Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who is retried and convicted after successfully appealing their initial conviction does not have constitutional protection against receiving a harsher sentence during the second trial. The case involved Billy G. Chaffin, who was initially sentenced to 15 years in prison for armed robbery but received a 30-year sentence upon his reconviction following an appeal of his first trial's verdict on grounds of insufficient counsel representation. He argued that this increased punishment violated his Fifth Amendment right against double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same offense - as well as due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment because it discouraged defendants from exercising their right to appeal convictions. However, the court disagreed with him by a vote of six to three, stating that neither amendment provided such protections since each sentencing was based on separate trials and thus did not constitute multiple punishments for one crime.

In the dissenting opinion for Chaffin v. Stynchcombe, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's view that a jury in a retrial has no need to be informed of a defendant's prior sentence. He argued that this information is relevant and necessary for ensuring fair sentencing outcomes. The justice believed that without knowledge of the previous sentence, juries might impose harsher penalties upon retrial, which could potentially violate defendants' constitutional rights against double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same crime). Furthermore, he contended that informing juries about prior sentences would not unduly influence their decision-making process or compromise their impartiality; rather it would provide them with important context needed to make an informed judgment on appropriate punishment.