In the case of Oklahoma v. Timothy R. Castleberry and Nicholas Raineri, 1984, the U.S Supreme Court addressed whether a state could impose additional punishment on an individual for committing a crime while out on bail for another offense. The defendants were charged with robbery after they had been released on bail for previous unrelated charges in Oklahoma. They argued that their constitutional rights against double jeopardy were violated when they received enhanced sentences due to their status as individuals who committed crimes while out on bail. The court ruled in favor of Oklahoma, stating that there was no violation of the Double Jeopardy Clause because each crime required proof of different facts and thus constituted separate offenses under Blockburger's test (a legal standard used to determine if two charges constitute the same offense). Furthermore, it held that enhancing a sentence based upon criminal conduct committed while released pending trial does not violate any federal constitutional provision prohibiting multiple punishments or successive prosecutions.

In the dissenting opinion for Oklahoma v. Castleberry and Raineri, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an instruction that was not legally correct undermined the defendant's right to a fair trial. He contended that it is essential for jurors to be correctly instructed about all elements of an offense in order for them to make informed decisions about guilt or innocence. In this case, he believed that the jury had been incorrectly instructed regarding what constitutes 'force' in relation to rape charges, which could have influenced their verdict. Furthermore, he expressed concern over how such errors might disproportionately impact defendants who are unable or unwillingly represented by counsel at trial.