In Gooding v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the interpretation of Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, which allows for correction of "plain errors" affecting substantial rights even if they were not brought to attention during trial. The defendant was convicted for refusing induction into military service and argued that his conviction should be reversed due to an error in jury instructions regarding intent. However, this issue was not raised at trial or in post-trial motions but only on appeal. The court held that under Rule 52(b), it could correct such an error only if it seriously affected fairness, integrity or public reputation of judicial proceedings independent from defendant's innocence or guilt. In this case, while there may have been some ambiguity in instructions given by judge about specific intent required for crime charged against Gooding (knowingly failing/refusing to report for induction), any potential confusion would likely favor him rather than prejudice him because it reduced government’s burden of proof; hence no plain error occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Gooding v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of Section 641 of Title 18 - which makes it a federal crime to steal or knowingly convert "any record, voucher, money, or thing of value" belonging to the United States - is too broad and could potentially criminalize innocent behavior. The dissent expressed concern that under this interpretation anyone who uses government property in an unauthorized way could be prosecuted under this statute. This includes employees who use office supplies for personal reasons or those who make personal phone calls from work phones. They also disagreed with the majority's view that intent to deprive ownership isn't necessary for conviction; they believed proving such intent should be required as part of prosecution’s burden in order to prevent misuse and overreach by law enforcement agencies.