In Halliday v. United States (1968), the Supreme Court ruled that a conviction could not be overturned due to an error in jury instructions if it was deemed harmless beyond a reasonable doubt. The case involved petitioner, Robert Halliday, who had been convicted of bank robbery based on evidence including his own confession and eyewitness testimony. During trial, the judge incorrectly instructed the jury that they could infer guilt from Halliday's recent possession of stolen money unless he provided an explanation for its possession which would leave them with reasonable doubt about his guilt. On appeal, while acknowledging this instruction as erroneous under prior rulings such as Wilson v. United States (1896), the Supreme Court held that since there was overwhelming evidence against him independent of any inference drawn from unexplained possession of recently stolen property, this instructional error did not contribute to his conviction and thus constituted harmless error.

In the dissenting opinion for Halliday v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to apply a new rule retroactively was inconsistent with previous decisions of the Court. He contended that such an approach would lead to uncertainty and unpredictability in criminal law, undermining public confidence in its administration. Furthermore, he believed it was unfair to defendants who had been convicted under old rules which were later deemed unconstitutional. In his view, once a conviction has become final and all avenues of direct review exhausted, there should be no further opportunity for challenging it on constitutional grounds unless there is evidence of actual innocence or other extraordinary circumstances justifying relief from the normal principles of finality.