In the 1903 case Lowe v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a person could be convicted of aiding and abetting in a crime even if they were not present at its commission. The defendant, Lowe, was accused of assisting in an illegal lottery operation by providing tickets for sale at his place of business. He argued that he could not be held responsible because he did not personally sell any tickets or participate directly in the lottery scheme. However, the court disagreed with this argument and upheld his conviction on grounds that anyone who knowingly aids or assists in carrying out an unlawful act is equally guilty as those who commit it directly.

In the dissenting opinion for Lowe v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated constitutional principles. He contended that a person should not be convicted of conspiracy to commit an offense against the U.S., unless it is proven beyond reasonable doubt that they had knowledge of such intent. The defendant in this case, he believed, was denied due process because there wasn't sufficient evidence proving his awareness or involvement in any illegal activity related to counterfeiting money orders - which formed the basis of his conviction. Furthermore, Harlan criticized how vague instructions given by trial court judges could lead juries into making wrongful convictions based on mere suspicion rather than concrete proof; thus undermining justice system’s integrity and fairness.