In the 1980 case Carter v. Kentucky, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge is required to instruct jurors on the presumption of innocence upon request from a defendant. The case involved Phillip Leon Carter who was charged with robbery in Kentucky state court and requested such an instruction, but his request was denied by the trial judge. He was subsequently convicted and appealed his conviction all the way up to the U.S Supreme Court arguing that this denial violated his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process of law. In its decision, which reversed Carter's conviction, Justice Potter Stewart writing for majority held that while not constitutionally mandated in every instance, when requested by a defendant or their counsel it becomes obligatory for judges to provide instructions reminding jurors about defendants' presumed innocence until proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt.

In the dissenting opinion for Carter v. Kentucky, Justice White argued that the majority's decision to require judges to give "no adverse inference" instructions upon defendants' request during criminal trials was unnecessary and potentially harmful. He contended that existing legal protections were sufficient in safeguarding a defendant's right not to testify without being penalized by jurors' negative assumptions. Furthermore, he expressed concern that such instructions could confuse or mislead jurors into thinking they should disregard any legitimate inferences drawn from a defendant’s silence at trial. This, according to him, might unduly favor defendants and disrupt the balance of justice within trials.