In the 1893 Supreme Court case Blitz v. United States, Charles Blitz was convicted of perjury in a lower court and appealed to the Supreme Court on grounds that his indictment did not sufficiently describe the nature of his offense. The charges against him were based on false testimony he gave during an investigation into alleged customs fraud. He claimed that he had purchased certain goods when, in fact, they had been smuggled into the country without payment of duties. His appeal argued that because his false statements were made before a grand jury rather than during a judicial proceeding or trial, they could not constitute perjury under federal law at that time. The Supreme Court disagreed with Blitz's argument and upheld his conviction for two main reasons: first, it found no requirement in federal law specifying where or when false testimony must be given to qualify as perjury; secondly, it ruled that any attempt to deceive or obstruct justice through lying under oath - regardless of whether this occurs within formal court proceedings - is punishable by law.

In the dissenting opinion for Blitz v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of proper legal representation during his trial. He contended that although the defendant had waived his right to counsel at some point in time, this waiver was not valid because it did not occur in open court and there was no record of it happening. Furthermore, he believed that even if such a waiver had occurred, it should have been disregarded given the seriousness of the charges against him - conspiracy to defraud and obstruct justice - which could result in severe penalties including imprisonment. In essence, Justice Brewer felt strongly that every individual facing serious criminal charges has an absolute right to be represented by counsel regardless of any purported waivers or other circumstances.