In the case of Mary Berghuis, Warden v. Diapolis Smith (2009), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on whether a suspect's right to remain silent was violated during police interrogation. The defendant, Diapolis Smith, argued that his Fifth Amendment rights were infringed upon because he did not explicitly waive them before being questioned by police about a shooting incident. However, the court held in a 5-4 decision that unless and until the accused invoked his Miranda rights—rights intended to protect individuals from self-incrimination—he could be interrogated without an explicit waiver of those rights. This ruling clarified that silence alone after hearing one’s Miranda Rights does not invoke these protections; instead it must be expressly stated by the individual under questioning.

In the dissenting opinion for Berghuis v. Smith, Justice Ginsburg argued that the jury selection process in this case was fundamentally flawed and violated Smith's Sixth Amendment rights to an impartial jury. She contended that Kent County’s method of drawing from sources which underrepresented African Americans resulted in a significant disparity between their proportion in the community and on juries. This, she believed, undermined public confidence in the justice system as it suggested racial bias or discrimination. Furthermore, she disagreed with majority's view about harmless error review application because it ignored systemic issues within Michigan's judicial system regarding minority representation on juries. Thus, according to her perspective, Smith should have been granted habeas relief due to these constitutional violations during his trial.