In Bennett v. United States (1912), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was charged with murder in Alaska, which at that time was considered a territory and not yet a state. The defendant, Bennett, argued that he should have been tried by a jury of twelve people as per the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. However, his trial had only involved eight jurors due to an Alaskan law allowing for smaller juries in territories. The court held that despite this law being contrary to common practice in most states, it did not violate any constitutional rights because Alaska was still technically classified as a territory rather than fully incorporated into the Union as a state. Therefore, its laws were subject to different standards compared with those applicable within states.

In the dissenting opinion for Bennett v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that there was a lack of evidence to support the claim that Bennett had committed perjury. He believed that it was not proven beyond reasonable doubt whether or not Bennett knew his statements were false when he made them, which is an essential element in proving perjury. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions within the prosecution's case against Bennett. For example, they claimed both that Bennett lied about being offered a bribe and also accepted one - two actions which cannot logically coexist if one considers accepting a bribe as proof of knowledge of its existence. Therefore, according to Justice Holmes' interpretation of events and understanding of law regarding perjury charges, he did not agree with majority's decision to uphold Bennet’s conviction.