In Brooks v. Tennessee (1971), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state law requiring defendants to be the first witness if they choose to testify in their own defense was unconstitutional, violating both due process and self-incrimination protections under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. The case involved Paul Junior Brooks who had been convicted of murder in Tennessee; his appeal argued that he'd been forced into testifying by this rule, which compelled him to make an immediate decision about testifying before knowing what other evidence might be presented against him during trial. In its ruling, the court found that such a requirement unfairly burdened defendants' rights not only because it could compel them into unwanted testimony but also because it restricted their ability to strategically decide when or whether they should take stand based on unfolding trial circumstances.

In the dissenting opinion for Brooks v. Tennessee, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision was an unnecessary intrusion into state court procedures and practices. He contended that it is not within the purview of federal courts to dictate how states should structure their criminal trials or when defendants should testify. Furthermore, he pointed out that there are valid reasons why a state might want to require defendants who wish to testify on their own behalf do so before other witnesses are called; such as preventing them from tailoring their testimony based on what they hear from others. The justice also noted that this rule does not prevent defendants from testifying altogether but merely regulates the order in which evidence is presented at trial - something traditionally left up to individual jurisdictions' discretion.