In Canizio v. New York (1945), the U.S Supreme Court upheld a conviction for murder in the second degree, rejecting claims that evidence had been obtained unconstitutionally. The defendant, Joseph Canizio, was convicted based on his wife's dying declaration - a statement made by her to police officers while she lay fatally wounded after being stabbed by him. Canizio argued that this violated his rights under the Fourteenth Amendment as he did not have an opportunity to cross-examine her and thus it constituted hearsay evidence. However, the court ruled 6-2 against him stating that dying declarations are an exception to hearsay rules and do not violate constitutional rights of confrontation or due process under common law principles incorporated into Fourteenth Amendment guarantees.

In the dissenting opinion for Canizio v. New York, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision violated the defendant's constitutional rights under the Fourth and Fourteenth Amendments. He believed that allowing evidence obtained through an illegal arrest to be used in court would encourage law enforcement officers to disregard citizens' constitutional protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Moreover, he contended that this ruling undermined a fundamental principle of American justice: namely, that evidence should be gathered legally and fairly. In his view, any short-term benefits gained from using such evidence were outweighed by long-term damage to public trust in law enforcement agencies and courts.