In Humes et al. v. United States (1927), the petitioners, who were officers and directors of a national bank, were convicted for misapplying the bank's funds and making false entries in its books with intent to defraud the bank and deceive its examiners. The Supreme Court upheld their convictions by rejecting their argument that they had been improperly indicted under federal law because they claimed that only state laws applied to them as officers of a national banking association located within a state. The court held that Congress has power under the Constitution to provide for incorporation of National Banks; therefore, it also has authority over offenses committed against such corporations or by their officials.

In the dissenting opinion for Humes et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence was flawed and potentially dangerous. He contended that while it is possible to convict someone based on indirect evidence, this should only be done when such evidence leaves no room for reasonable doubt about guilt - which he did not believe was true in this case. In his view, the prosecution had failed to present sufficient proof of intent or conspiracy among defendants; instead relying heavily on speculation and inference from unrelated facts. This approach risked undermining fundamental principles of justice by allowing convictions without clear-cut proof of criminal behavior or intent.