In the 1909 case of Pickett v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a defendant could be convicted for receiving stolen property if they were unaware that it had been stolen from a post office. The defendant, Pickett, had received and sold stamps he did not know were stolen from a post office. The court ruled in favor of the United States, stating that ignorance of how or where an item was obtained does not absolve someone from guilt if they knowingly receive and sell stolen goods. This decision established precedent regarding knowledge requirements in cases involving receipt of stolen property.

In the dissenting opinion for Pickett v. United States, it was argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and could potentially lead to unjust outcomes. The dissenting justices believed that a person should not be held criminally liable for receiving or concealing stolen property unless they knew at the time of receipt or concealment that it had been stolen. They contended that this requirement is necessary to ensure fairness in criminal prosecutions and prevent innocent people from being punished unfairly. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that mere possession of stolen goods can serve as sufficient evidence of guilt without further proof required by prosecutors.