In the United States v. Tateo case of 1963, the Supreme Court ruled that a retrial following a defendant's successful appeal does not constitute double jeopardy. The defendant, Joseph Tateo, was convicted for bank robbery and sentenced to 25 years in prison. He appealed his conviction on grounds of judicial misconduct during his trial and won; however, he was subsequently re-indicted for the same crime. Tateo argued that this constituted double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same offense - which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment of US Constitution. However, Justice Goldberg delivered an unanimous decision stating that when a defendant successfully appeals their initial conviction due to errors in proceedings or conduct at trial level (not because they were found innocent), it doesn't bar them from being retried on same charges.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Tateo, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to allow retrial after a defendant successfully appeals their conviction undermines protections against double jeopardy. He contended that this ruling could potentially expose defendants to harassment and oppression by repeated prosecutions for the same offense. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how it might discourage defendants from appealing wrongful convictions due to fear of facing harsher penalties upon retrial. In his view, once a trial has ended in either acquittal or conviction and sentence, it should be considered final unless there is evidence of fraud or lack of jurisdiction - not simply because an error was made during proceedings.