In the case of Wasman v. United States, 1983, petitioner Michael Wasman appealed his sentence after pleading guilty to one count of possessing stolen mail. The District Court had considered other similar but uncharged offenses in determining his sentence - a decision that was upheld by the Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit. However, Wasman argued this violated his due process rights under the Fifth Amendment and protection against double jeopardy under the Sixth Amendment. The Supreme Court ruled 6-3 in favor of affirming lower courts' decisions and held that it is not unconstitutional for a judge to consider relevant information about a defendant's past conduct when sentencing him or her within statutory limits, even if those actions were not formally charged or resulted in acquittal. This ruling clarified that such consideration does not constitute "punishment" for these acts nor violate protections against double jeopardy as long as they are used only to inform an appropriate sentence within established guidelines.

In the dissenting opinion for Wasman v. United States, Justice Brennan, joined by Justice Marshall, argued that the majority's decision failed to provide clear guidance on how much discretion judges have in considering a defendant's criminal history when imposing sentences for separate offenses. They contended that while it is appropriate to consider past convictions during sentencing, using them as a basis for increasing punishment could lead to arbitrary and potentially unfair outcomes. The dissenters also expressed concern about potential violations of due process rights if defendants are punished more severely based solely on their past crimes rather than the specific details of their current offense. They suggested that clearer guidelines should be established regarding what factors can be considered during sentencing and how they should influence judicial decisions.