In the case of Harrison v. United States in 1895, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy. The defendant, Harrison, was initially indicted for murder and convicted of manslaughter. However, he appealed this conviction and won a new trial due to an error made by the court during his first trial. In his second trial, he was again convicted of manslaughter but with a harsher sentence than before - from two years imprisonment to fifteen years imprisonment. He then appealed this decision arguing that it violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy as he received a more severe punishment after being retried for the same offense. The Supreme Court disagreed with Harrison's argument stating that when an initial conviction is set aside due to some error in proceedings or judgment at behest of defendant himself/herself (as happened in this case), it cannot be said that they have been punished or put into 'jeopardy' twice for same crime if they are subsequently reconvicted and given different sentence upon retrial.

In the dissenting opinion for Harrison v. United States, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to double jeopardy. The justice believed that the indictment in question did not sufficiently differentiate between two separate offenses and therefore, trying Harrison twice on essentially identical charges constituted double jeopardy. It was also noted that there should have been a clear distinction made between conspiracy to defraud and actual fraud itself as they are distinct crimes with different elements of proof required by law. This lack of differentiation led to confusion about what crime he had actually committed which further infringed upon his right to a fair trial. Therefore, according to this view, Harrison’s conviction should be overturned because his Fifth Amendment rights were violated.