In the 1937 case Forte v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving tax evasion and fraud. The defendant, Mr. Forte, was convicted of attempting to evade or defeat income taxes by filing false and fraudulent returns for two years consecutively. He appealed his conviction arguing that he had been prosecuted twice for the same offense in violation of the Fifth Amendment's protection against double jeopardy because both charges were based on one act - submitting a false statement under oath about his net income. The Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating that each year constituted a separate taxable period; therefore, each count represented an independent unit of prosecution even though they arose from continuous behavior over time. It further clarified that it is not just one single act but rather every individual instance where there was intent to defraud which constitutes as an offense punishable separately under law. Thus, despite being based on similar actions across different periods (years), these offenses did not constitute double jeopardy since they pertained to distinct annual tax obligations.

In the dissenting opinion for Forte v. United States, Justice Benjamin Cardozo argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated because he was not informed of his right to counsel during his trial. He believed that this omission resulted in an unfair trial and thus, a miscarriage of justice. Furthermore, he contended that it is essential for defendants to be aware of their legal rights so they can adequately defend themselves in court. Therefore, according to Justice Cardozo’s dissenting view, Mr. Forte should have been granted a new trial due to these procedural errors which infringed upon his constitutional protections under the Sixth Amendment.