In the case of Moon v. Maryland, 1969, the appellant was convicted for robbery with a deadly weapon and sentenced to death by a jury in Baltimore City Criminal Court. The Supreme Court of United States granted certiorari to review whether the imposition of capital punishment constituted cruel and unusual punishment under Eighth Amendment. However, before this issue could be addressed, it came into light that there were procedural errors during trial proceedings which violated due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment. Specifically, it was found that jurors had been improperly instructed about their discretion in imposing death penalty or life imprisonment as they were led to believe they had no choice but to impose death sentence upon finding defendant guilty. Furthermore, defense counsel's objections regarding these instructions were overruled by trial judge which further infringed upon appellant's constitutional rights. Therefore, without addressing constitutionality of capital punishment itself (which remained an open question), US Supreme Court reversed judgment on grounds of procedural error and remanded case back for new trial.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Moon v. Maryland argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mr. Moon's conviction was a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant issues with how evidence was obtained and used during Mr. Moon's trial, including potential violations of search and seizure laws as well as concerns about coerced confessions or testimonies from witnesses who may have been pressured by law enforcement officials into providing false statements against him. They also raised questions about whether he had received effective legal representation during his trial, suggesting that these factors combined could have resulted in an unfair verdict against him.