In the case of Glavey v. United States (1900), the petitioner, John J. Glavey, was convicted for embezzling postal funds while serving as a postmaster in Massachusetts and sentenced to imprisonment. He appealed his conviction on several grounds including that he had been denied due process because some members of the grand jury which indicted him were also part of the petit jury that convicted him; this violated state law but not federal law at that time. The Supreme Court ruled against Glavey, upholding his conviction and sentence. The court held that there was no constitutional requirement mandating separation between grand juries and petit juries; therefore it did not violate due process rights under federal law even if it contravened state laws or common practice elsewhere. Furthermore, they found no evidence to suggest prejudice or partiality from jurors who served on both panels affecting their judgment during trial proceedings. This decision reinforced principles regarding dual sovereignty where states could establish their own legal standards separate from those set by federal government unless explicitly prohibited by U.S Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Glavey v. United States, it was argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned due to a lack of evidence proving his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant inconsistencies and contradictions in the prosecution's case, which raised serious questions about its validity. They also pointed out that some of the key witnesses against Glavey had questionable credibility and their testimonies were not corroborated by other evidence. Furthermore, they criticized the trial judge for failing to properly instruct the jury on how to evaluate this conflicting testimony and determine whether it met the high standard required for a criminal conviction. Therefore, they concluded that Glavey did not receive a fair trial and his constitutional rights were violated.