Adam Ham, plaintiff in error, brought a case against the State of Missouri. He argued that he had been wrongfully convicted and sentenced to death for murder. The Supreme Court ultimately reversed his conviction on the grounds that the trial court did not properly instruct jurors about reasonable doubt. Specifically, they found that jurors were improperly instructed to presume guilt if there was any evidence presented by the prosecution which could be interpreted as supporting it. This decision established an important precedent in criminal law: defendants must be given proper instructions regarding reasonable doubt before being convicted of a crime or facing punishment such as execution.

Adam Ham, plaintiff in error, argued that the state of Missouri had violated his constitutional rights by convicting him for a crime he did not commit. The majority opinion held that the conviction was valid because it was based on circumstantial evidence and there were no irregularities in the trial proceedings. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that although circumstantial evidence can be used to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, it must still be sufficient to exclude every other reasonable hypothesis except guilt. In this case, Justice McLean believed that there was insufficient proof of Adam Ham's guilt and thus his conviction should have been overturned as unconstitutional. He further contended that when an individual is convicted solely on circumstantial evidence without any direct proof or testimony against them then their right to due process has been denied under the Fourteenth Amendment.