In the United States v. Tucker case of 1971, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's previous convictions could not be considered in sentencing if those convictions were unconstitutional. The case involved William Douglas Tucker who was sentenced to life imprisonment under federal law for armed bank robbery due to his two prior felony convictions. However, it was later revealed that he had not been represented by counsel during these earlier trials which violated his Sixth Amendment rights as established by Gideon v. Wainwright (1963). As such, the Supreme Court held that Tucker’s sentence should be reconsidered without taking into account his previous uncounseled convictions because they were constitutionally invalid.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Tucker, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to remand the case back to lower courts for resentencing based on a misinformed judge. He argued that there was no evidence that the sentencing judge had relied heavily on two prior convictions which were later found unconstitutional due to lack of counsel representation during those trials. The original sentence, he believed, was not influenced by these previous convictions and therefore should stand as is. Furthermore, he expressed concern over setting a precedent where sentences could be challenged long after they have been handed down if it is discovered that some aspect of information used in sentencing was flawed or incorrect.