In Thurston v. United States (1913), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who had been convicted of murder in Alaska, which at that time was a territory and not yet a state. The defendant, Mr. Thurston, argued that his conviction should be overturned because he had been tried by a six-person jury instead of the traditional twelve-person jury required for federal trials under the Sixth Amendment to the Constitution. However, Congress had passed legislation allowing smaller juries in territorial courts due to logistical difficulties associated with assembling larger juries in remote areas like Alaska. The Supreme Court upheld Mr. Thurston's conviction stating that territories were different from states and thus did not have all of the same constitutional protections as states do under certain circumstances such as this one where practical considerations necessitated deviations from standard practice.

In the dissenting opinion for Thurston v. United States, Justice Holmes argued that the defendant's conviction should be upheld. He disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "intent to defraud" in relation to counterfeiting activities. According to him, intent could be inferred from actions and circumstances surrounding those actions without explicit evidence of an intention to deceive or cheat someone else out of their property rights. In this case, he believed that by knowingly possessing counterfeit coins and intending to pass them off as genuine currency, it was reasonable enough proof of fraudulent intent even if there were no specific victims identified at trial. Furthermore, he contended that a broader interpretation would better serve public interest by deterring potential counterfeiters who might exploit any perceived loopholes in law enforcement efforts against such crimes.