In Farrar and Brown vs. the United States, two men were charged with piracy after they had been accused of stealing a boat from an American port. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, finding that there was no evidence to prove that either man had committed any act of piracy or robbery on board the vessel. Furthermore, it was determined that even if one or both men had taken part in such activities, their actions did not constitute piracy under U.S law since they lacked intent to commit theft or violence against persons aboard the ship at sea. This ruling established important precedent for future cases involving similar charges as it demonstrated how difficult it is to prosecute individuals without clear proof of criminal activity and intent beyond reasonable doubt.

In Farrar and Brown vs. the United States, Chief Justice Marshall delivered a dissenting opinion that argued against the majority's decision to uphold an act of Congress which authorized a court-martial for two Navy officers accused of mutiny. He argued that since there was no evidence presented in court to prove their guilt, they should have been acquitted on all charges. Furthermore, he contended that it was unconstitutional for Congress to pass such an act without providing any proof or due process rights as required by law. In his view, this violated both the spirit and letter of Article III Section 2 Clause 3 of the Constitution which states "The trial of all crimes...shall be held in the State where they shall be committed." As such, he believed that these men were denied their right to a fair trial and thus should not have been convicted based solely on hearsay evidence provided by witnesses who did not appear before them during proceedings.