In the United States v. Limehouse case of 1931, the Supreme Court ruled on an issue related to tax evasion and illegal alcohol production during Prohibition. The defendant, Limehouse, was accused of operating an unregistered distillery and evading taxes associated with its operation. He argued that he could not be prosecuted for both crimes as it would constitute double jeopardy - being tried twice for the same offense - which is prohibited by the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution. However, in a unanimous decision led by Justice George Sutherland, the court held that each charge constituted a separate offense under different statutes: one for running an unregistered distillery (which violated federal law) and another for tax evasion (a violation of revenue laws). Therefore, prosecuting him on both counts did not violate his constitutional rights against double jeopardy.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Limehouse case argued that the evidence presented was insufficient to convict Limehouse of violating the National Prohibition Act. The justice believed that there was no direct proof linking Limehouse to any illegal activity, and all accusations were based on circumstantial evidence or hearsay from unreliable witnesses with questionable motives. Furthermore, they felt that some of these testimonies contradicted each other and lacked credibility due to their inconsistent nature. They also pointed out flaws in how law enforcement conducted their investigation, suggesting potential bias or misconduct could have influenced the outcome of this case. Therefore, they concluded that a conviction under such circumstances would be unjust and against principles of fair trial.