In the 1963 case Nagelberg v. United States, the Supreme Court dealt with issues related to tax evasion and fraud. The petitioner, Mr. Nagelberg, was convicted of evading income taxes for three years by understating his income from a corporation he controlled and owned. He appealed on grounds that there were errors in instructions given to the jury regarding fraudulent intent and willfulness as well as an error in admitting evidence of his net worth at the end of each year under prosecution without requiring proof that it accurately reflected his net worth at beginning of those years. The Supreme Court upheld Nagelberg's conviction stating that while establishing opening net worth is crucial when using this method to prove tax evasion, failure to do so does not automatically render such evidence irrelevant or prejudicial per se if other substantial independent evidence supports taxpayer's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Furthermore, they found no fault with how trial judge instructed jury about fraudulent intent and willfulness required for conviction under applicable law.

In the dissenting opinion for Nagelberg v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the defendant's right to a fair trial was violated due to prejudicial publicity surrounding his case. He believed that such widespread and negative media coverage could have influenced the jury's decision-making process, thereby undermining their impartiality. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to adequately address this issue in their ruling. According to him, it is not enough for courts merely to instruct jurors about disregarding external influences; they must also take active steps towards ensuring an unbiased trial environment by controlling pretrial publicity or moving trials when necessary. In essence, Justice Douglas contended that every individual has a constitutional right to be tried by an impartial jury free from outside influence – a principle which he felt was compromised in this case.