In the case of Smith et al. v. Florida, 1971, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a state law that allowed for enhanced penalties for repeat offenders violated the constitutional prohibition against double jeopardy or cruel and unusual punishment. The appellants were convicted felons who had been sentenced under Florida's Habitual Felony Offender Act which provided stiffer sentences for individuals with prior felony convictions. They argued that this amounted to being punished twice for their previous crimes and constituted cruel and unusual punishment in violation of the Eighth Amendment. The court rejected these arguments, ruling that states have a legitimate interest in deterring recidivism by imposing harsher sentences on habitual criminals. It held that such laws do not violate either double jeopardy principles because they punish only future offenses committed by repeat offenders nor constitute cruel and unusual punishment as long as they are proportionate to the crime committed.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith et al. v. Florida, the justice argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider whether or not a state law requiring unanimous jury verdicts in criminal cases violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. The justice believed that this requirement could potentially infrive on an individual's right to a fair trial by creating undue pressure on minority jurors to conform their votes with those of majority jurors, thereby undermining their independence and impartiality. Furthermore, they contended that such unanimity rules may disproportionately affect racial minorities and other marginalized groups who are often underrepresented in juries. They also criticized how these laws can lead to hung juries and mistrials which waste judicial resources and prolong legal proceedings unnecessarily.