In the case of Goldberg v. United States in 1975, the Supreme Court ruled on whether or not a grand jury witness could be convicted for perjury based solely on uncorroborated testimony from an accomplice. The defendant, Goldberg, had been found guilty of perjury after testifying before a grand jury investigating illegal gambling operations. His conviction was primarily based on the testimony of an alleged co-conspirator who contradicted Goldberg's statements to the grand jury. On appeal, he argued that his conviction should be overturned because it relied heavily upon uncorroborated evidence provided by an accomplice. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction with a unanimous decision stating that there is no absolute rule requiring corroboration of accomplice testimony in federal prosecutions for perjury committed before a grand jury and that such matters are best left to juries under appropriate instructions from their trial judges regarding weight and credibility given to testimonies.

In the dissenting opinion for Goldberg v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through electronic surveillance violated Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices contended that such surveillance constituted an invasion of privacy, even if it was conducted with a warrant and probable cause. They believed this interpretation of the Fourth Amendment would open up potential abuses by law enforcement agencies who could use electronic surveillance as a tool for widespread spying on citizens without their knowledge or consent. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that conversations recorded in public places were not protected under the Fourth Amendment because individuals should reasonably expect privacy in their communications regardless of location.