In Trono v. United States (1905), the U.S Supreme Court was tasked with determining whether a criminal conviction in the Philippines, which at that time was under U.S control, violated constitutional rights to trial by jury. The case involved an individual named Trono who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death by a Philippine court without a jury trial. Upon appeal, he argued that his Sixth Amendment right to a jury trial had been violated. The Supreme Court ruled against Trono stating that constitutional protections did not automatically extend to territories controlled by the United States but not incorporated as states. The court held that only fundamental rights were guaranteed in such territories and determined that access to trial by jury was procedural rather than fundamental; thus it wasn't required in this circumstance. This decision reinforced what is known as the "Insular Cases" doctrine - where full constitutional protection isn’t necessarily granted within unincorporated territories of America unless explicitly stated so by Congress.

In the dissenting opinion for Trono v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the Supreme Court did not have jurisdiction over this case as it originated in a foreign country (the Philippines). He believed that U.S. laws and constitutional protections should not extend to territories acquired after the Spanish-American War unless explicitly stated by Congress. Harlan also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "cruel and unusual punishment," arguing that punishments deemed acceptable at one point in history may become unacceptable due to societal changes; thus, he considered death by garrote cruel and unusual punishment under modern standards. Furthermore, he contended that even if they had jurisdiction, there was insufficient evidence to support Trono's conviction for murder because no body was ever found.