In White v. United States, the Supreme Court considered the question of whether a defendant could be convicted of a crime if the indictment failed to allege the essential elements of the offense. The defendant, White, was charged with the crime of embezzlement of public funds. The indictment failed to allege that White had acted with fraudulent intent, which was an essential element of the crime. White argued that the indictment was insufficient and that he should be acquitted. The Supreme Court held that the indictment was insufficient and that White should be acquitted. The Court reasoned that the indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the crime in order to be valid. Since the indictment failed to allege the essential element of fraudulent intent, it was insufficient and White should be acquitted. The Court also noted that the government could not rely on the presumption of innocence to prove the element of fraudulent intent. The Court's decision in White v. United States established the principle that an indictment must allege all of the essential elements of the crime in order to be valid. This principle has been applied in numerous cases since then and is an important part of criminal law.

Justice Harlan delivered the dissenting opinion in White v. United States, arguing that the majority's decision was contrary to both precedent and common sense. He argued that Congress had not intended for a person who committed an offense against one state to be tried by another state, as this would violate due process of law. Furthermore, he noted that if such a practice were allowed it could lead to abuses of power by states with more lenient laws than those of other states. In addition, Justice Harlan argued that allowing such prosecutions would create confusion among citizens regarding which court they should appear before when charged with an offense in multiple jurisdictions. Ultimately, Justice Harlan concluded his dissent by stating his belief that the Constitution did not permit federal courts to try offenses committed solely within a single state’s jurisdiction unless authorized by Congress or otherwise provided for under existing statutes or treaties between two or more states.