In the 1967 case Bruton v. United States, George Bruton was convicted of postal robbery based on a confession made by his co-defendant, Evans. The Supreme Court ruled that using Evans' confession as evidence against Bruton violated his Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses. Although the trial judge instructed jurors not to consider Evan's confession in determining Bruton's guilt or innocence, the court held that this instruction was insufficient to protect Bruton’s rights because it is unrealistic for jurors to separate such information when deliberating each defendant’s guilt separately. Therefore, despite any limiting instructions given by a judge, introducing a non-testifying co-defendant's confession at trial violates another defendant’s constitutional rights if the statement incriminates them.

In the dissenting opinion for Bruton v. United States, Justice White argued that the majority's decision was not supported by precedent or logic. He contended that a defendant’s rights are adequately protected when a jury is instructed to consider a co-defendant’s confession only against the confessing party and not against any other defendants. He believed this instruction would prevent prejudice towards non-confessing defendants, as juries are presumed capable of following such instructions properly. Furthermore, he pointed out that there were no empirical data supporting the majority's assumption about jury behavior in these situations; hence it was speculative at best. Lastly, Justice White expressed concern over potential negative impacts on trial efficiency due to separate trials being required whenever confessions implicating co-defendants exist.