In the case of Crossley v. California, 1897, the United States Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a defendant convicted of murder in California. The appellant argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed to testify on his own behalf due to a state law prohibiting defendants in criminal cases from testifying. However, the court ruled against him and upheld his conviction. The Supreme Court held that this prohibition did not violate the Fourteenth Amendment's Due Process Clause as it does not deny any fundamental right or fairness but is simply part of California's rules about evidence admissibility in trials. This decision affirmed states' power to set their own procedural rules for criminal trials unless they infringe upon federal constitutional protections. This ruling also reflected prevailing legal thought at that time which often viewed defendants' testimonies as inherently unreliable due to their vested interest in trial outcomes. It wasn't until later years when most jurisdictions began allowing and encouraging defendants’ testimony recognizing its potential value for ensuring justice.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Crossley v. California argued that the majority's decision to uphold a state law imposing taxes on foreign corporations doing business within its borders was unconstitutional. The dissent contended that this law violated both the Commerce Clause and Equal Protection Clause of the Constitution, as it discriminated against out-of-state businesses by subjecting them to higher tax rates than those imposed on domestic corporations. Furthermore, they believed this ruling would set a dangerous precedent for states to enact protectionist policies under the guise of taxation, which could potentially disrupt interstate commerce and undermine economic unity among states. They also expressed concerns about potential retaliation from other states towards California-based companies operating outside their home state.