In the case of Stilson v. United States (1919), the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant does not have an absolute right to be present at all stages of their trial, specifically during discussions on jury instructions. The appellant, Stilson, was convicted for violating wartime prohibition laws and appealed his conviction arguing that he had been denied his constitutional rights because he was absent when the judge gave instructions to the jury. However, in its decision, the court held that as long as a fair trial is ensured and no prejudice has occurred due to absence from non-critical stages of proceedings such as these discussions on legal points between judge and counsel outside presence of accused or jury deliberations after evidence is closed; then there's no violation under Sixth Amendment which guarantees right to public trial by impartial jury.

In the dissenting opinion for Stilson v. United States, Justice Louis Brandeis argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. He contended that wiretapping constituted an invasion of privacy and was therefore unconstitutional without a warrant. Furthermore, he believed that allowing such evidence in court would encourage law enforcement agencies to continue using these invasive methods, thereby undermining individual liberties protected by the Constitution.