In the case of Pierce v. United States in 1895, the Supreme Court ruled on a matter involving counterfeit currency. The defendant, Pierce, was convicted for possessing and intending to sell counterfeit money. On appeal, he argued that his conviction should be overturned because the indictment did not specify whether he knew that the money was counterfeit at the time of possession. However, this argument failed as it contradicted established legal precedent which stated that knowledge of an item's illicit nature is implied when one possesses it with intent to defraud or sell it illegally. Therefore, even though there may have been no explicit evidence proving Pierce knew about its illegality at first possession; his subsequent actions demonstrated such awareness implicitly by attempting to use them fraudulently later on. The Supreme Court upheld Pierce’s conviction stating that if someone has control over something with fraudulent intentions then they are presumed to know its illegal character regardless of whether they were aware initially or not.

In the dissenting opinion for Pierce v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence was flawed. He contended that there were too many uncertainties and potential explanations in this case to definitively conclude guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The defendant had been convicted of stealing mail bags based on indirect evidence such as his possession of similar bags and his proximity to where they disappeared from, but no one saw him take them or found any direct proof linking him to their theft. Brewer believed these circumstances could be coincidental rather than indicative of criminal activity, making it unjustifiable to convict without more concrete evidence. His view emphasized caution when relying heavily on circumstantial evidence due its inherent ambiguity and potential for misinterpretation.