In the 1913 case of Riley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a lower court's decision to convict William H. Riley for murder in the first degree and sentence him to death by electrocution. The defense argued that there were errors made during trial proceedings, including improper instructions given to jurors regarding reasonable doubt and presumption of innocence, as well as alleged misconduct on part of jury members who visited crime scene without authorization from court officials or knowledge by either prosecution or defense teams. However, after reviewing these claims, the Supreme Court found no reversible error had occurred and affirmed both conviction and sentencing handed down by state courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Riley v. Commonwealth of Massachusetts argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to an unlawful search and seizure. The dissenting justices believed that evidence obtained from a warrantless search should not have been admitted at trial, as it was seized without probable cause or exigent circumstances which would justify such a breach of privacy. They contended that this decision undermines Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures, setting a dangerous precedent for future cases. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "exigent circumstances," arguing that there was no immediate danger or risk of evidence destruction to necessitate bypassing standard procedures for obtaining a warrant before conducting the search.