In the 1985 case of Poland v. Arizona, the US Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning capital punishment and double jeopardy. The defendants, Patrick Poland and his brother Michael were initially convicted for murder in connection with an armed robbery in Arizona but their convictions were overturned due to procedural errors during trial. In a retrial, they were again found guilty and sentenced to death - harsher than their initial life imprisonment sentence. They appealed this decision arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment which prevents someone from being tried twice for the same crime after acquittal or conviction. The Supreme Court disagreed with them by ruling that since their original convictions had been set aside entirely because of procedural errors unrelated to guilt or innocence, there was no bar under double jeopardy principles against imposing death sentences upon reconviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Poland v. Arizona, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a death sentence based on an aggravating factor not found by a jury violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to trial by jury. He contended that this was inconsistent with previous Supreme Court rulings which had established that any fact increasing punishment beyond statutory maximums must be submitted to a jury and proven beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on procedural default rules as it allowed states to avoid federal review of constitutional claims in capital cases simply because they were not raised at state level first time around. This approach, according to him, undermined habeas corpus protections and risked erroneous executions due to inadequate legal representation or other errors at trial stage.