In the United States v. Dunn et al., 1924, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal tax on distilled spirits was applicable to whiskey that had been illegally produced during Prohibition. The defendants were charged with possession of untaxed whiskey and argued that since it was illegal to produce alcohol at all under Prohibition laws, they could not be held liable for failing to pay taxes on their illicit product. However, the court ruled against them in a unanimous decision. It found that despite being produced unlawfully, such spirits were still subject to taxation as per internal revenue laws because these laws did not exempt illegally-produced goods from taxation. Therefore, even though producing alcohol was illegal due to prohibition law at this time period in history (1920-1933), those who did so were still required by law to pay taxes on what they made.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Dunn et al., 1924 case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on circumstantial evidence was flawed. The dissenters believed that there was insufficient proof beyond reasonable doubt, which is required for criminal convictions. They contended that while it may be possible to infer guilt from certain circumstances, such inference should not replace concrete evidence and cannot form the basis of a guilty verdict. Furthermore, they expressed concern about potential miscarriages of justice if courts were allowed to convict individuals solely based on circumstantial evidence without direct proof of their involvement in alleged crimes.