In the 1968 case United States v. Covington, the U.S Supreme Court dealt with an appeal from a conviction for refusing induction into military service during the Vietnam War. The defendant, Covington, claimed that his local draft board had improperly denied him conscientious objector status and thus he should not have been drafted. He argued that his opposition to war was based on moral and ethical convictions as strong as those which stem from religious beliefs - a requirement under law at that time for such exemption. The court ruled against Covington stating that while it is true one does not necessarily need to belong to a traditional or organized religion in order to qualify for conscientious objector status, they must still hold beliefs stemming from religious views rather than merely personal moral codes. In this case, it was determined by both lower courts and affirmed by the Supreme Court that Covington's objections were primarily political and personal in nature rather than religious; therefore he did not meet criteria necessary for classification as a conscientious objector.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Covington, the justice argued that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the defendant had knowledge of his accomplice's intent to rob a bank. The dissenting judge believed that mere association with a guilty party or presence at the scene of crime is not enough to establish guilt by aiding and abetting. Furthermore, he contended that while circumstantial evidence can be used in such cases, it must exclude every reasonable hypothesis except guilt; something which he felt was not achieved in this case due to weak evidentiary support linking Covington directly with planning or knowing about the robbery beforehand. He also criticized majority’s reliance on an inference drawn from post-crime conduct as proof of pre-crime knowledge and intent.