In the case of North Carolina v. Pearce, 1968, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a judge cannot impose a harsher sentence on a defendant who has won an appeal and is facing retrial for the same crime. The court held that such action would violate both double jeopardy (being tried twice for the same offense) and due process clauses of the Constitution. This decision was based on two separate cases where defendants were given stiffer sentences after they successfully appealed their original convictions. The ruling established guidelines to ensure judges do not retaliate against defendants who exercise their constitutional rights to challenge convictions.

In the dissenting opinion for North Carolina v. Pearce, Justice Black disagreed with the majority's decision that a judge must provide reasons on record if they choose to impose a harsher sentence after retrial. He argued that this requirement was not constitutionally mandated and could potentially infringe upon judicial discretion in sentencing decisions. Furthermore, he expressed concern over the potential implications of such a ruling on plea bargaining processes and its possible discouragement of defendants from appealing their sentences out of fear of receiving harsher punishment upon retrial. In his view, judges should be trusted to exercise their power responsibly without needing explicit justification for each decision made during sentencing.