In the 1994 case Steven Kurt Witte v. United States, the Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to use prior convictions as part of sentencing for subsequent offenses. The defendant, Steven Kurt Witte, had been convicted on drug charges and was given an enhanced sentence due to his previous criminal history involving similar offenses. He appealed this decision arguing that using his past crimes violated double jeopardy principles by punishing him twice for the same crime. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that considering a defendant’s criminal history in determining their sentence does not constitute punishment for those earlier crimes but rather serves to measure their culpability for the current offense based on their demonstrated propensity towards criminal behavior.

In the dissenting opinion for Steven Kurt Witte v. United States, Justice Scalia argued that using a prior conviction to enhance a sentence for a subsequent crime is unconstitutional if the defendant was not represented by counsel during the first trial. He contended that this practice violated both due process and equal protection clauses of the Constitution, as it effectively punished individuals twice for one offense and disproportionately affected those who could not afford legal representation. Furthermore, he criticized majority's reliance on Nichols v. United States (1994), stating it did not directly address whether uncounseled convictions could be used in sentencing enhancements under federal law but rather dealt with state law implications only.