In Dowling v. United States (1989), the Supreme Court ruled that evidence of prior criminal acts could not be used in a subsequent trial unless those acts had resulted in convictions. Paul Edward Dowling was accused of interstate transportation of stolen property, specifically bootleg vinyl records. The prosecution attempted to use evidence from an earlier case where he had been acquitted due to lack of jurisdiction as proof for his current charges. However, the court held that this violated the Fifth Amendment's Double Jeopardy Clause which prevents individuals from being tried twice for the same crime after acquittal or conviction and also protects against multiple punishments for the same offense.

In the dissenting opinion for Dowling v. United States, Justice Blackmun argued that the Court majority had misinterpreted both legislative intent and precedent in its decision to exclude evidence of prior crimes from a federal trial. He contended that Congress intended for such evidence to be admissible under certain circumstances when it passed the Federal Rules of Evidence, particularly Rule 404(b). This rule allows for admission of past crime evidence if it proves motive, opportunity, intent or similar aspects relevant to the current case. Furthermore, he pointed out that previous Supreme Court decisions have upheld this interpretation. In his view, excluding such crucial information could potentially hinder justice by preventing juries from seeing a complete picture of defendants' actions and intentions.