In the case of Eberle v. People of the State of Michigan (1913), the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a conviction for murder in Michigan, rejecting an appeal that argued against the admissibility of certain evidence and statements made by witnesses during trial. The defendant, Charles Eberle, was convicted for murdering his wife and appealed on grounds that some evidences were improperly admitted at trial including photographs showing condition of deceased's body when found and testimony about her fearfulness before death due to threats from him. He also challenged instructions given to jury regarding circumstantial evidence which he claimed were misleading or confusing. However, after reviewing these points raised by appellant, court held they did not constitute reversible error as per federal law standards applicable then; hence affirmed lower courts' judgment without any dissenting opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Eberle v. People of the State of Michigan, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. He contended that there was insufficient proof to establish that Eberle had committed perjury when he testified in a previous trial about not receiving any money from another party involved in an insurance claim case. The justice pointed out inconsistencies and gaps in testimonies used against Eberle, including one witness who admitted they could not remember certain details clearly. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on circumstantial evidence and assumptions rather than concrete facts to affirm Eberle’s conviction. In conclusion, Justice Holmes believed it was unjustifiable to uphold a guilty verdict based on such weak evidentiary grounds.