In the 1982 case Connecticut v. Johnson, the U.S. Supreme Court was asked to determine whether a jury instruction that shifted the burden of proof to the defendant in a murder trial violated his constitutional rights under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment. The court split evenly on this issue, with four justices arguing that such an instruction did violate these rights and four arguing it did not; Justice Powell abstained from voting as he believed there were procedural issues preventing them from reaching this question. As a result of this tie vote, no precedent was set by their decision and instead upheld lower court's ruling which had found for Johnson (the defendant). This meant that while Johnson's conviction was overturned because his right to be presumed innocent until proven guilty had been infringed upon by shifting burden onto him during trial proceedings, future defendants would not necessarily have same protection unless another similar case came before Supreme Court again and resulted in clear majority opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Connecticut v. Johnson, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold Johnson's conviction despite a potentially flawed jury instruction was incorrect. He contended that when there is uncertainty about whether a jury has properly considered an essential element of a crime—in this case, intent—the court should err on the side of caution and assume they did not. This approach would protect defendants' rights by ensuring juries fully consider all elements before reaching their verdicts. Furthermore, he disagreed with the majority’s view that harmless error analysis could be applied in cases where it was unclear if constitutional errors had influenced jurors’ decisions. Instead, he believed such errors required automatic reversal because they fundamentally compromised trial fairness and integrity.