In the Moore v. United States case in 1904, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a person could not be tried twice for the same offense, upholding the principle of double jeopardy. The defendant, Moore, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a lower court in Alaska. However, he appealed his conviction on grounds that certain evidence was improperly admitted at trial and won a new trial from an appellate court. When retried before another jury with proper evidence handling procedures followed this time around; he was again found guilty but only sentenced to ten years imprisonment instead of execution as initially ordered by first jury verdict. The government then sought review arguing it should have right to appeal against such reduction in sentence which effectively amounted to acquittal on original charge (murder). But Supreme Court disagreed stating once acquitted or convicted; one cannot be put into jeopardy again for same crime thus affirming constitutional protection against double jeopardy.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was incorrect and overly broad. He contended that Congress did not intend to criminalize all false statements made under oath, but rather only those which were material and had a direct impact on an investigation or proceeding. According to him, this narrow interpretation would better align with principles of justice and fairness while still upholding the integrity of legal proceedings. Furthermore, he believed that it was inappropriate for courts to infer guilt based solely on a defendant's refusal to answer certain questions during testimony; such refusals should be considered in context rather than taken as evidence of perjury by default.