In McCrea v. United States (1934), the Supreme Court upheld a conviction for tax evasion, rejecting the defendant's claim that he was not given an opportunity to cross-examine government witnesses. The case involved William J. McCrea who had been convicted of evading taxes on his 1920 income by filing false and fraudulent returns with intent to defraud the United States Government. He appealed this decision arguing that he was denied due process because he wasn't allowed to cross-examine two key government witnesses about their calculations of his net worth increase during 1920, which formed basis for prosecution’s charge against him. The court ruled in favor of the U.S., stating that it found no error in how lower courts handled this matter as they were satisfied with evidence presented by these expert witnesses regarding McCrea’s financial status and saw no need for further examination or explanation from them on their methods used in determining such data.

In the dissenting opinion for McCrea v. United States, Justice Cardozo disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold McCrea's conviction on charges of conspiracy to defraud the U.S. government by making false claims against it. He argued that there was insufficient evidence presented at trial to prove beyond a reasonable doubt that McCrea had knowingly participated in a fraudulent scheme or conspired with others to do so. According to Justice Cardozo, mere association with individuals involved in fraud does not constitute guilt and cannot be used as grounds for conviction unless there is clear proof of knowledge and intent. He also criticized the majority for failing to properly apply legal standards regarding circumstantial evidence and conspiracy law, which he believed led them to an incorrect conclusion about McCrea's guilt.