In the case of Riddle v. Dyche, Warden of the United States Penitentiary at Atlanta, Georgia (1922), petitioner William Riddle was serving a life sentence in federal prison for murder when he applied for habeas corpus relief on grounds that his conviction violated his Fifth Amendment rights against double jeopardy and self-incrimination. The Supreme Court denied his petition, ruling that there had been no violation of these constitutional protections. The court found that although Riddle had previously been acquitted on charges related to the same incident, this did not constitute double jeopardy as the second trial was based on different evidence and charged him with a separate crime - first-degree murder instead of manslaughter or assault with intent to kill. Furthermore, they ruled that any potential self-incrimination occurred because Riddle voluntarily testified in his own defense during trial rather than being compelled by prosecutors or courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Riddle v. Dyche, it was argued that the petitioner should have been granted a writ of habeas corpus by the lower court. The dissenting justices believed that there were significant questions about whether or not Riddle's constitutional rights had been violated during his trial and sentencing in Kentucky state courts. They pointed out that these issues could only be properly addressed through a federal review of his case via habeas corpus proceedings, which would allow for an examination of potential violations of due process and other constitutional protections. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority ruling denying him this opportunity to challenge his detention under federal law.