In the case of Alberty v. United States (1895), the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving an individual named Alberty who was charged with selling liquor to Native Americans, which was illegal at that time. The defendant argued that he had been entrapped by government agents into committing this crime and thus should not be held responsible for his actions. However, the court rejected this argument stating that even if entrapment occurred, it did not absolve him from guilt as he still willingly committed the act in question. Furthermore, they stated that any inducement or persuasion by government officials does not excuse criminal conduct unless it is so overpowering as to leave no room for resistance on part of the accused person.

In the dissenting opinion for Alberty v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the defendant was not given a fair trial due to several procedural errors made by the court. He contended that there were issues with how evidence was presented and interpreted during the trial, which could have influenced its outcome unfairly against Alberty. Specifically, he criticized how testimonies from witnesses were handled and believed they should have been scrutinized more thoroughly before being accepted as fact in court proceedings. Furthermore, he disagreed with how certain legal principles were applied in this case - particularly those related to criminal intent - arguing that these interpretations did not align with established law or precedent. Ultimately, Justice Brewer felt strongly enough about these perceived injustices to voice his disagreement publicly through his dissenting opinion.