In the 1913 case Malone v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, the U.S. Supreme Court addressed an appeal by a man named John Malone who had been convicted in Kentucky for selling liquor without a license and sentenced to pay $100 or serve fifty days in jail. The main issue was whether his conviction violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment due to lack of notice about what constituted illegal behavior under state law. The court ruled against Malone, stating that ignorance of the law is not an excuse for breaking it and that it's presumed every person knows the law. It also noted that even if he didn't know about this specific statute, there were ample ways he could have found out before engaging in such activity.

In the dissenting opinion for Malone v. Commonwealth of Kentucky, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of fair trial. The dissenting justices believed that there was an abuse of discretion by the trial court in refusing to grant a continuance when one of Malone’s key witnesses could not be present at his original trial date. They contended this refusal denied him his right to compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor as guaranteed by both state and federal constitutions. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on circumstantial evidence used against Malone, arguing it wasn't substantial enough to warrant conviction without reasonable doubt. In their perspective, these factors combined resulted in an unfair legal proceeding which undermined principles fundamental to American justice system.