In the case of Stoneham v. Texas in 1966, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a conviction for burglary with intent to commit theft violated the defendant's constitutional rights because it was based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant, Stoneham, argued that his conviction should be overturned as there wasn't any direct evidence linking him to the crime. However, the court held that circumstantial evidence can be used to support a criminal conviction if it is sufficiently compelling and reliable. Therefore, even though there were no eyewitnesses or direct physical evidence tying Stoneham directly to this specific burglary act he had been charged with; other factors such as his possession of items stolen from similar burglaries around that time period provided enough indirect proof for upholding his sentence by lower courts.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Stoneham v. Texas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Stoneham's conviction for robbery was flawed due to a lack of sufficient evidence. The dissent pointed out that there were no eyewitnesses who could positively identify Stoneham as the perpetrator, and his alleged confession had been obtained under questionable circumstances which may have violated his constitutional rights. Furthermore, they noted inconsistencies in the prosecution's narrative and suggested that these raised reasonable doubt about Stoneham’s guilt. They also criticized the trial court for failing to instruct jurors on how to evaluate circumstantial evidence properly, potentially leading them towards an unjust verdict based on speculation rather than fact. Therefore, they believed it would be more appropriate for this case to be remanded back down for retrial with proper instructions given regarding circumstantial evidence evaluation.