In the United States v. Ball case of 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy. The defendants, Millard Fillmore Ball and two others were initially acquitted for murder charges due to lack of evidence. However, they were later indicted again for the same crime after new evidence was found. They appealed against this second indictment arguing that it violated their Fifth Amendment rights protecting them from being tried twice for the same offense (double jeopardy). The Supreme Court held that since there had been no final judgment in their first trial because it ended in acquittal due to insufficient evidence rather than a verdict based on guilt or innocence, retrying them did not constitute double jeopardy. Therefore, they could be retried without violating their constitutional rights under the Fifth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Ball, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision contradicted established legal principles regarding double jeopardy. He contended that a defendant could be retried if their initial trial ended in an acquittal due to errors in proceedings or insufficient evidence rather than a determination of actual innocence. According to him, the defendants' first trial was flawed because it included an individual who should not have been tried with them; thus, this did not constitute true jeopardy and they could be retried without violating their rights against double jeopardy. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority's interpretation of relevant English common law precedents and believed they had failed to properly consider American case law on this issue.