In Prather v. United States (1896), the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a defendant could be convicted of murder if they did not physically commit the act but were involved in its planning or execution. The case revolved around two men, Prather and another man named Williams who had conspired to rob a post office in Indian Territory. During the robbery, Williams shot and killed an individual while Prather was outside keeping watch. Both men were charged with murder under federal law which stated that any person aiding or abetting in a crime is equally guilty as those who directly committed it. The defense argued that since Prather did not actually pull the trigger, he should not be held accountable for murder. However, the court disagreed stating that his involvement in planning and executing the robbery made him just as culpable for any crimes committed during its course - including murder. This ruling established an important precedent regarding accomplice liability within American criminal law: individuals can be found guilty of crimes they didn't personally carry out if they played significant roles in their commission.

In the dissenting opinion for Prather v. United States, it was argued that the court erred in its interpretation of the law and application to this case. The justice believed that there were significant issues with how evidence was handled during trial, particularly regarding testimonies from witnesses who had been indicted but not yet tried or convicted. He contended that these individuals should have been considered incompetent as witnesses due to their pending legal status and potential bias or motivation to lie under oath. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's decision on grounds of jurisdictional overreach by federal courts into state matters - a violation of states' rights according to him. This dissenting view held strong reservations about expanding federal power at expense of individual liberties and state sovereignty.