In the 1962 case of Andrews v. United States, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a defendant's constitutional rights were violated when they were not allowed to cross-examine a government witness about their psychiatric history. The defendant, Andrews, had been convicted of bank robbery and argued that he should have been permitted to question the credibility of an eyewitness who had previously undergone treatment for mental illness. However, the court ruled against him in a unanimous decision stating that it is within the discretion of trial courts to limit cross-examination on issues such as these if they are deemed irrelevant or prejudicial. This ruling affirmed that while defendants do have broad rights under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause - which guarantees criminal defendants an opportunity for effective cross-examination - those rights are not absolute and can be limited by other considerations at play during trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Andrews v. United States, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure was in violation of the Fourth Amendment. He contended that allowing such evidence to be used would encourage law enforcement officers to continue conducting illegal searches, as they could still use any incriminating items found during these searches against defendants in court. Furthermore, he believed this ruling undermined citizens' constitutional rights by failing to provide adequate protection from unreasonable government intrusion into their private lives. In his view, excluding unlawfully obtained evidence from trials is essential for deterring police misconduct and upholding individuals' civil liberties.