In the 1944 case of Tomkins v. Missouri, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy and self-incrimination protections under the Fifth Amendment. The defendant, Tomkins, was charged with first-degree murder in Missouri state court but was convicted of second-degree murder instead. He appealed this conviction to the state supreme court arguing that his confession had been coerced and should not have been admitted into evidence; however, his appeal was denied. Subsequently, he petitioned for habeas corpus relief from federal courts claiming violation of his constitutional rights. The U.S Supreme Court held that it could not intervene in such cases unless it is shown that there has been a denial by a state court of due process or equal protection as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment - which wasn't proven here according to them. They emphasized that they are not an appellate jurisdiction for errors committed at trial level in states' courts nor can they re-evaluate facts determined therein.

In the dissenting opinion for Tomkins v. Missouri, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law allowing evidence obtained through illegal search and seizure was fundamentally flawed. He contended that such laws violated an individual's constitutional rights under the Fourth Amendment, which protects against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, he believed this ruling undermined public confidence in law enforcement by condoning police misconduct. Justice Murphy asserted that all evidence obtained illegally should be excluded from court proceedings regardless of its relevance or reliability as it is tainted by the unlawful methods used to obtain it. He also emphasized that respect for individual privacy and dignity were paramount principles in a democratic society like America; thus, any legislation infringing upon these values should not be tolerated.