In the case of Anderson, Warden v. Charles (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's prior inconsistent statements can be used to challenge their credibility in court, even if they have not been convicted for those previous crimes. The respondent, Charles had previously pleaded guilty to two counts of robbery and was later charged with another crime based on similar circumstances. During his trial for this subsequent offense, he changed his story about where he was during one of the earlier robberies - an inconsistency which prosecutors highlighted during cross-examination as evidence against him. On appeal, Charles argued that this violated his constitutional rights under Doyle v Ohio because it penalized him for exercising his right to remain silent after receiving Miranda warnings at the time of arrest for these earlier offenses. However, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld its use by prosecutors stating that such inconsistencies could indeed be used as impeachment evidence since they were not related to silence but rather contradictory explanations given at different times.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson, Warden v. Charles, Justice Rehnquist disagreed with the majority's interpretation of federal habeas corpus law. He argued that a state court conviction should be presumed correct unless there is clear evidence to suggest otherwise. The burden of proof should lie with the defendant to show that their constitutional rights were violated during trial proceedings. In this case, he believed that Charles had not met this burden and therefore his conviction should stand as valid under federal law. Furthermore, Rehnquist criticized the majority's decision as an overreach into states' rights by allowing federal courts to reevaluate and potentially overturn state court decisions without sufficient cause or justification.