In the case of Sinclair et al. v. United States, 1928, Harry F. Sinclair and Albert B. Fall were convicted for conspiracy to defraud the U.S government in connection with oil leases at Teapot Dome, Wyoming during President Harding's administration (the infamous Teapot Dome scandal). The Supreme Court upheld their convictions despite arguments that they had been denied a fair trial due to excessive publicity and public sentiment against them; it was ruled that this did not infringe upon their constitutional rights as long as jurors could still objectively judge based on evidence presented in court. Sinclair also argued his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination was violated when he refused to answer certain questions before a Senate committee investigating the matter but was later indicted based on those refusals; however, the Court held that since no compulsion or penalty had been applied by Congress for his refusal to testify there wasn't any violation of his rights under this amendment. The decision affirmed that high-ranking officials can be held accountable for corruption charges even amidst intense media scrutiny and public opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Sinclair et al. v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justices Louis Brandeis and Harlan Fiske Stone, argued that the defendants' rights had been violated due to prejudicial publicity surrounding their trial. The justices contended that the extensive media coverage of this case made it impossible for a fair trial to take place in Washington D.C., where public sentiment was strongly against them. They believed that such an environment could unduly influence jurors and thus compromise their impartiality, which is essential in ensuring justice is served fairly and accurately according to law. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority's decision not to grant a change of venue or postpone proceedings until public interest subsided.