In the case of Pierce v. United States in 1913, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter related to criminal law and procedure. The defendant, Pierce, was charged with stealing mail bags from a post office - an offense punishable by imprisonment for up to three years under federal law. However, he was indicted under another section of the same statute that dealt with thefts from "any other place" where mail is deposited or carried - which had a maximum penalty of five years' imprisonment. The trial court convicted him and sentenced him to four years in prison. Pierce appealed his conviction arguing that he should have been prosecuted under the specific provision dealing with thefts from post offices rather than the more general one relating to thefts from any place handling mail. He contended that this misapplication resulted in an excessive sentence beyond what Congress intended for his crime. The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his conviction and sentence reasoning that when two statutory provisions apply to the same conduct, prosecutors may generally choose which one they wish to pursue unless there's clear legislative intent favoring one over another.

In the dissenting opinion for Pierce v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the defendants should not have been convicted because they were charged under a statute that was too vague and broad in its language. He believed that it was unfair to punish someone for violating a law when it is unclear what behavior the law actually prohibits. Furthermore, he contended that if Congress intended to criminalize certain actions related to alcohol consumption on Native American reservations, then it should have done so explicitly rather than relying on ambiguous phrasing. In essence, his argument centered around principles of fairness and clarity in legal statutes - suggesting individuals cannot be expected to comply with laws they can't reasonably understand.