In Corbitt v. New Jersey (1978), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a New Jersey statute that allowed for different penalties depending on whether a defendant pleaded guilty or went to trial, ruling it did not violate the constitutional rights of defendants. The case involved William Corbitt who was charged with first-degree murder and chose to go to trial rather than plead guilty to non-capital manslaughter which carried a lesser sentence. He was convicted and received life imprisonment while those who pled guilty would have faced 15-30 years in prison instead. The court ruled 5-4 that this disparity did not coerce defendants into pleading guilty nor punish them for insisting on their right to trial by jury, thus upholding the constitutionality of plea bargaining.

In the dissenting opinion for Corbitt v. New Jersey, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Marshall and Stevens, argued that the majority's decision upheld a system that coerced guilty pleas and violated defendants' rights to a fair trial. They contended that New Jersey’s law unfairly punished those who chose to exercise their constitutional right to stand trial rather than plead guilty. The dissenters believed this practice was inconsistent with due process of law as it effectively penalized individuals for asserting their legal rights. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on prosecutorial discretion in plea bargaining situations; instead arguing such power could be abused leading to unfair outcomes or inequality before the law.