The United States v. Murdock case in 1931 revolved around the issue of self-incrimination and tax evasion. The defendant, William J. Murdock, was charged with willfully failing to supply information for his income tax return as required by law. He argued that he had a right not to answer questions on his return because they might incriminate him under state laws concerning prohibition violations (as some of his income came from illegal alcohol sales). Initially, the lower courts ruled against him but upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it was held that federal immunity statutes protected individuals from prosecution at both state and federal levels based on any evidence they were compelled to give about themselves. Therefore, Murdock could not be convicted for refusing to provide potentially self-incriminating information on a federal form when such information could expose him to state penalties.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Murdock, Justice Stone argued that the defendant's conviction should be upheld. He contended that the Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination does not apply to state offenses in federal courts and therefore, it was irrelevant whether or not Murdock believed he could incriminate himself under state law by providing information on his federal tax return. The majority's decision to reverse the conviction based on this belief was seen as a misinterpretation of both legal precedent and constitutional rights by Justice Stone. He asserted that if every individual were allowed to refuse compliance with a federal statute due to fear of self-incrimination under state law, it would severely undermine Federal authority and create an untenable situation where individuals could essentially choose which laws they wished to obey.