In Shapiro v. United States (1914), the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was not violated when he was compelled to produce business records, even if those records could potentially incriminate him. The case involved Samuel Shapiro, who had been indicted for conspiracy to defraud the government by underreporting his income on tax returns. He refused to provide certain ledgers and books requested by the prosecution, arguing that doing so would violate his constitutional rights. However, in its decision, the court held that there is no absolute privilege against producing documents which may incriminate an individual; rather it depends on nature of demand made upon person required to produce them and circumstances under which it is made.

In the dissenting opinion for Shapiro v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant's conviction should be overturned because he was not given a fair trial. He believed that the evidence used against Shapiro was obtained illegally and therefore should have been excluded from his trial. Furthermore, Justice Holmes contended that even if this evidence were admissible, it did not conclusively prove Shapiro's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt as required by law. He also criticized the majority for their interpretation of the Sherman Anti-Trust Act, arguing they had expanded its scope far beyond what Congress intended when it passed this legislation in 1890. In conclusion, Justice Holmes maintained that due process rights must always be upheld regardless of how damning or incriminating certain pieces of evidence may seem to be.