In Germann v. United States (1967), the defendant, Mr. Germann, was convicted for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury regarding possible violations of federal gambling laws. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had been denied his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and that the government had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Germann's conviction stating that he could not invoke the Fifth Amendment as a blanket protection against answering all questions put forth by the grand jury without demonstrating how each question might incriminate him specifically. Furthermore, it ruled that since there was no dispute about whether or not Mr. Germann refused to answer questions from a legally constituted grand jury after being granted immunity from prosecution based on those answers, there were no factual issues requiring proof beyond reasonable doubt in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Germann v. United States, the justice argued that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to support the conviction. The defendant was charged with conspiracy to defraud the United States by impeding and impairing its lawful functions, but according to this dissenting view, no concrete proof had been presented demonstrating such an intent on his part. Furthermore, it was pointed out that even if one were to accept all government's evidence as true and accurate, it still did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that he knowingly participated in any scheme designed or intended to deceive federal authorities. This viewpoint emphasized strict adherence to principles of criminal law which stipulate guilt must be proven beyond a reasonable doubt before anyone can be justly convicted.