In the 1945 case of Bihn v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a defendant's constitutional rights were violated when he was not allowed to consult with his attorney during a court recess while jury deliberations were ongoing. The defendant, Mr. Bihn, had been convicted for violating federal narcotics laws and appealed on this basis. The Supreme Court held that denying access to counsel under these circumstances did not constitute an infringement of Sixth Amendment rights as long as no further evidence or arguments were presented after the consultation was denied. This ruling established precedent regarding defendants' right to counsel during different stages of trial proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for BIHN v. UNITED STATES, 1945, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Bihn's conviction on charges of conspiracy to defraud the United States government contradicted established legal principles regarding conspiracy law. The dissent contended that a person cannot be convicted of conspiring with government agents who have no intent to commit an offense. In this case, Bihn was accused of conspiring with undercover federal agents posing as corrupt officials in order to obtain fraudulent naturalization certificates for immigrants. However, since these "co-conspirators" were actually working against him and had no intention of committing any crime themselves, they could not legally be considered his co-conspirators under traditional interpretations of conspiracy law. Therefore, according to the dissenters' view point ,the conviction should have been overturned.