In the United States v. Yuginovich et al., 1920, the Supreme Court dealt with a case involving illegal alcohol production during Prohibition. The defendants were charged with conspiracy to violate internal revenue laws by operating an unregistered distillery and evading taxes on distilled spirits. They argued that their indictment was defective because it did not specify where they had committed these crimes, which they claimed was necessary under the Sixth Amendment's provision for being informed of "the nature and cause of the accusation." However, Justice Mahlon Pitney delivered a unanimous opinion rejecting this argument. He stated that while indictments must inform defendants about what they are accused of doing wrong in sufficient detail to prepare a defense and avoid double jeopardy, there is no constitutional requirement for specifying where federal offenses took place unless location is an essential element of the crime itself.

The dissenting opinion in the United States v. Yuginovich case argued that the defendants were not given a fair trial due to prejudicial errors made by the prosecution and court during proceedings. The dissent noted that, while it was clear some of the defendants had committed crimes, there was insufficient evidence presented against others who were also convicted. It criticized how certain pieces of evidence were handled and admitted into court without proper scrutiny or consideration for their relevance or reliability. Furthermore, it took issue with how jury instructions were delivered, suggesting they may have unduly influenced jurors' decisions in favor of conviction. Overall, this dissenting view held that these procedural missteps undermined confidence in the verdicts reached and called into question whether justice had been served.