In Robinson v. Neil, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state cannot try a defendant for two separate offenses arising from the same criminal act or transaction if it has already tried him once and either acquitted or convicted him. The case involved an individual who was charged with both robbery and assault with intent to commit murder in Tennessee following an incident where he shot a store clerk during a robbery attempt. He was first tried and convicted of assault, then later retried on the robbery charge using evidence from his previous trial - which led to another conviction. The court held this violated the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which prohibits multiple prosecutions for the same offense.

In the dissenting opinion for Robinson v. Neil, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision to apply its ruling retroactively was inconsistent with previous court decisions and could potentially lead to a flood of appeals from prisoners who had pleaded guilty under different circumstances. He contended that such an outcome would place an unnecessary burden on already overburdened state courts and correctional systems. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "double jeopardy," arguing that it should only apply when a defendant is tried twice for the same offense, not when they are sentenced separately for two distinct crimes arising from one act or transaction. In his view, this broadened interpretation was not supported by historical precedent or constitutional text.