In the 1970 case of Bostic v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a defendant's constitutional rights were violated when he was not allowed to cross-examine a government witness about his pending criminal charges. The court ruled that it is within the discretion of trial courts to limit cross-examination on issues that are irrelevant or could potentially confuse jurors. In this particular case, Mr. Bostic had wanted to question an informant about his past crimes and current charges in order to challenge his credibility as a witness against him. However, the Supreme Court held that since there was no evidence suggesting any agreement between prosecutors and the informant for leniency in exchange for testimony against Mr.Bostic, such questioning would have been speculative at best and possibly misleading at worst.

In the dissenting opinion for Bostic v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on an ambiguous statute was unjust and contrary to established principles of statutory interpretation. The dissenting justices believed that any ambiguity in a criminal statute should be resolved in favor of the defendant, as per the rule of lenity. They contended that this principle is fundamental to maintaining fairness within our justice system and ensuring individuals are only punished for conduct clearly prohibited by law. In their view, upholding Bostic's conviction violated his due process rights because he could not have reasonably known his actions were illegal under such an unclear law. Furthermore, they criticized the majority’s reliance on legislative history rather than clear statutory language when interpreting laws.