In the United States v. Gainey case of 1964, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning circumstantial evidence and its use in criminal convictions. The defendant, Gainey, was found near an illegal distillery and arrested for being involved in its operation. He was convicted based solely on his proximity to the site under a statute that allowed such inference unless satisfactorily explained by the accused person at trial. On appeal, Gainey argued this violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination as it forced him to testify or face conviction based purely on presence at crime scene. The Supreme Court disagreed with Gainey's argument stating that while defendants cannot be compelled to testify against themselves, they can be expected to provide some explanation if there is strong circumstantial evidence suggesting guilt - like being found near an illegal activity site without reasonable explanation for their presence there. Therefore, it upheld his conviction ruling that statutory provisions allowing juries to infer guilt from unexplained presence do not violate constitutional rights provided they are used cautiously and only when other corroborating evidence supports them.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Gainey, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's interpretation of a federal statute was incorrect and violated the defendant's constitutional rights. He contended that by allowing an inference of guilt based solely on presence at an illegal distillery, without any additional evidence or context, it infringed upon Gainey’s Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial. According to Justice Douglas, this presumption shifted the burden of proof from prosecution to defense in violation of due process principles because it forced defendants like Gainey either to testify in their own defense or risk being convicted based on mere presence at a crime scene. Furthermore, he believed such presumptions were not only unfair but also unnecessary since Congress had provided other means for prosecuting those involved in illicit distilling operations.