In the 1946 case United States v. Bruno, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled on an issue related to double jeopardy. The defendants, Joseph and Carmine Bruno, were initially convicted for conspiracy to violate federal narcotics laws but their convictions were overturned due to a procedural error during their trial. The government then sought a retrial on the same charges which led to another conviction for both men. They appealed this second conviction arguing that it violated their Fifth Amendment protection against being tried twice for the same crime (double jeopardy). However, in its decision, the Supreme Court held that when a defendant's initial conviction is set aside because of an error in proceedings "not affecting his guilt or innocence," retrial does not constitute double jeopardy under U.S law as defined by Constitution’s Fifth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Bruno, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a retrial after acquittal due to judicial error undermined the protection against double jeopardy provided by the Fifth Amendment. The dissenting justices contended that this ruling could potentially lead to abuse of power by prosecutors and judges who might manipulate errors in order to secure a second chance at conviction if they fail on their first attempt. They also pointed out that allowing such retrials would place an unfair burden on defendants, both financially and emotionally, as they would have to endure multiple trials for the same offense. Furthermore, they believed this ruling contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions which had upheld protections against double jeopardy even in cases where there were serious errors during trial proceedings.