In the 1913 case of Gilson v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue involving a man named Charles H. Gilson who was convicted for embezzling funds from a national bank where he served as cashier. The main point of contention in this case revolved around whether or not certain evidence should have been admitted during his trial. This evidence included books and papers that were seized by a National Bank Examiner without any search warrant or subpoena, which Gilson argued violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. The court ultimately upheld Gilson's conviction, ruling that while private individuals are protected under the Fourth Amendment from having their property searched and seized without proper legal authority, these protections do not extend to corporations such as banks because they are created by public law for public purposes. Therefore, it was deemed appropriate for the National Bank Examiner to seize documents related to potential wrongdoing at the bank even though no formal legal process had been followed.

In the dissenting opinion for Gilson v. United States, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to an improper jury instruction. The justice believed that the trial court erred in instructing the jury they could find Gilson guilty of murder if they determined he had a "general intent" to commit an unlawful act which resulted in death, rather than requiring proof of a specific intent to kill. This broad interpretation allowed for conviction based on negligence or recklessness, not just intentional action - effectively lowering the standard required for conviction and potentially infringing upon Gilson's right to fair trial. Furthermore, there was disagreement with majority’s view about circumstantial evidence being sufficient enough for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that such reliance on indirect evidence might lead to wrongful convictions as it leaves room for conjecture and speculation instead of solid proof.