In the case of Connecticut v. Barrett, 1986, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Connecticut by a vote of 5-4. The defendant, Michael Barrett was arrested for sexual assault and read his Miranda rights but he refused to provide written statements without an attorney present; however, he agreed to verbal communication with police officers without legal counsel's presence. During these discussions, he made incriminating admissions which were used against him at trial leading to his conviction. On appeal to the Supreme Court, Barrett argued that using his oral statements as evidence violated his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination since they were obtained after he had invoked his right not to make any written statement outside counsel’s presence. The court held that while suspects have a constitutional right under Miranda v Arizona (1966) not be subjected into making self-incriminating testimonies during custodial interrogation unless they waive their rights knowingly and voluntarily; this waiver can be limited or conditional based on suspect's choice and understanding about it being effective only when fully exercised or waived unconditionally. Therefore since Mr.Barrett willingly chose not speak in writing but verbally without an attorney present ,his selective invocation did not extend blanket protection over all forms of communication hence no violation occurred when state used those voluntary utterances as evidence .

In the dissenting opinion for Connecticut v. Barrett, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and undermined Miranda rights. He contended that a suspect who refuses to provide written statements without counsel present has effectively invoked his right to remain silent in all contexts, not just those involving written communication. By allowing verbal confessions obtained after such refusal, he believed the court essentially permitted law enforcement officers to circumvent suspects' constitutional protections by switching from one form of questioning to another. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on an alleged distinction between oral and written statements which is not supported by precedent or logic as it does not lessen potential coercion during interrogation or increase reliability of evidence collected.