In the case United States v. Romano et al., 1965, defendants Anthony Romano and Jack Silverman were convicted for operating an illegal still without posting the required sign indicating such operation, a violation of federal law. The Supreme Court overturned their convictions on appeal due to lack of evidence proving that they had possession or control over the still. The government's argument relied heavily on circumstantial evidence: both men were found near the site and one was covered in sugar (a common ingredient in moonshine). However, there was no direct proof linking them to owning or controlling it. The court ruled that mere presence at or near a crime scene is not sufficient proof of involvement; more concrete evidence must be provided by prosecution to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Romano et al., Justice Goldberg argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of the law and an overemphasis on circumstantial evidence. He contended that mere presence at an illegal distillery, without more concrete proof of intent or participation in unlawful activities, should not be sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt under 26 U.S.C § 5601(a)(1). The defendants were found near a still but there was no direct evidence linking them to its operation. In his view, this ruling could potentially lead to wrongful convictions as it lowers the standard required for conviction from 'beyond reasonable doubt' to 'probable cause'. This shift would undermine one of the fundamental principles of American criminal jurisprudence - presumption of innocence until proven guilty.