# Wasman v. United States

> Supreme Court of the United States · July 3, 1984 · 468 U.S. 559

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429740

## Case

- **Full name:** Wasman v. United States
- **Court:** Supreme Court of the United States
- **Decided:** July 3, 1984
- **Citations:** 468 U.S. 559; 52 U.S.L.W. 5063; 104 S. Ct. 3217; 82 L. Ed. 2d 424; 1984 U.S. LEXIS 144
- **Precedential status:** Published
- **Opinion:** Concurrence by Brennan
- **Judges:** Burger Announced the Judgment of the Court And
- **Cited by:** 512 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429740

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- explaining that, in connection with sentencing, a trial court “must be permitted to consider any and all information that reasonably might bear on the proper sentence for the particular defendant,” since “highly relevant — if not essential — to [the court’s] selection of an ap…
- explaining that, “after retrial and conviction follow‐ ing a defendant’s successful appeal, a sentencing authority may justify an increased sentence by affirmatively identify‐ ing relevant conduct or events that occurred subsequent to 30 the original sentencing proceedings”
- holding a district court “may justify an increased sentence by affirmatively identifying relevant conduct or events that occurred subsequent to the original sentencing proceedings” (emphasis added)
- noting that “the judge informed the parties that, although he did not consider pending charges when sentencing a defendant, he always took into account prior criminal convictions. This, of course, was proper; indeed, failure to do so would have been inappropriate” (emphases in…
- holding that the presumption of vindictiveness did not apply when there was an intervening criminal conviction that affected the trial court's decision to impose a harsher sentence

## Opinion text

Justice Brennan,
with whom Justice Marshall joins, concurring in the judgment.
Substantially for the reasons expressed by Justice Powell in his separate opinion, I concur in the judgment.

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/9429740. Public record. Not legal advice.