In the case of Clewis v. Texas, 1966, the United States Supreme Court overturned a conviction due to insufficient evidence. The defendant, Clewis, was convicted for murder in Texas based on circumstantial evidence that he had been seen with the victim before her death and his subsequent suspicious behavior. However, there was no direct evidence linking him to the crime scene or proving that he committed the act of murder. The Supreme Court ruled this as a violation of Due Process Clause under Fourteenth Amendment which guarantees fair treatment through normal judicial system especially as a citizen's entitlement (right). It held that when convictions are extremely fact-based and rely heavily on circumstantial evidence without any concrete proof or eyewitness testimony directly implicating an accused person in criminal activity; such convictions can be deemed constitutionally inadequate thus violating one’s right to due process.

In the dissenting opinion for Clewis v. Texas, it was argued that the majority's decision to overturn Clewis' conviction based on insufficient evidence was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there was ample circumstantial evidence presented at trial to support a guilty verdict and therefore, it should not be within the Supreme Court's purview to reevaluate this evidence or second-guess the jury’s conclusion. They contended that by doing so, they were overstepping their judicial role and infringing upon state courts’ jurisdiction in criminal matters. Furthermore, they asserted that such an approach could potentially undermine public confidence in both federal and state judiciaries as well as disrupt established legal principles regarding appellate review of factual determinations made by juries.