In the 1981 case of Tibbs v. Florida, Freddie Lee Tibbs was initially convicted for murder and rape in a Florida court. The Supreme Court of Florida reversed this conviction due to insufficient evidence, leading to his acquittal on retrial. However, the state appealed against this decision arguing that it violated the Double Jeopardy Clause - which prevents an individual from being tried twice for the same crime following an acquittal or conviction - as they believed there was enough evidence for a guilty verdict. The U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Tibbs stating that double jeopardy did not apply in this situation because he had been acquitted based on lack of sufficient proof rather than factual innocence. They held that if a defendant's initial trial ends with an appellate reversal due to insufficiency of evidence, then retrial does not constitute double jeopardy even if they are subsequently acquitted.

In the dissenting opinion for Tibbs v. Florida, Justice White argued that the majority's decision undermined the finality of jury verdicts and could potentially lead to endless retrials. He contended that a reversal based on weight, rather than sufficiency of evidence, was inappropriate in this case because it allowed for a second evaluation of witness credibility and conflicting testimony - an assessment he believed should be reserved solely for juries. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse by appellate courts who might use their power to overturn verdicts they simply disagreed with or found unfavorable. In his view, such actions would infringe upon defendants' rights against double jeopardy as well as disrupt public confidence in judicial proceedings due to perceived arbitrariness or bias.