In the case of Thomas Schiro v. Robert Farley, Superintendent, Indiana State Prison et al., 1993, the U.S Supreme Court considered whether a defendant could be retried on capital sentencing after an earlier trial resulted in a deadlock on that issue. The petitioner, Thomas Schiro was convicted for murder and rape in Indiana state court but the jury failed to reach a unanimous verdict regarding his death sentence during his first trial. Consequently, he was sentenced to life imprisonment without parole by default under state law. However, upon appeal from both sides over different issues related to this conviction and sentence; it led to another sentencing hearing where he received the death penalty. Schiro appealed arguing double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same crime is unconstitutional as per Fifth Amendment rights - because he had already been implicitly acquitted of capital punishment when jurors couldn't agree at his first trial. The Supreme Court disagreed with him stating that hung jury did not equate acquittal hence no violation of Double Jeopardy Clause occurred here. They upheld lower courts' decisions allowing re-sentencing which ultimately affirmed Schiro's death penalty.

In the dissenting opinion for Thomas Schiro v. Robert Farley, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision to deny review of Schiro's case was a mistake. He believed that there were significant issues regarding jury instructions and how they related to Indiana law on multiple murder convictions which needed clarification by the Supreme Court. The justice pointed out inconsistencies in how different states interpret felony-murder rule and expressed concern over potential confusion among jurors when deciding on guilt or innocence based on these rules. Furthermore, he emphasized his belief in the importance of clear jury instructions especially when a defendant’s life is at stake as it can significantly impact their constitutional rights to due process and protection from cruel and unusual punishment.