In the 1970 case of Dutton v. Evans, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Warden Dutton, upholding a murder conviction against William Evans despite claims that his Sixth Amendment rights had been violated. The controversy centered on hearsay evidence used during trial; specifically, a statement made by an alleged accomplice who did not testify at court was reported to the jury by another witness. This raised questions about Evan's right to confront witnesses against him as guaranteed under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment. However, in its decision (6-3), the Supreme Court held that this clause does not necessarily prohibit all out-of-court statements from being admitted into evidence and it doesn't guarantee absolute rights for cross-examination either. Instead, they argued that such cases should be evaluated based on whether or not they undermine "the integrity of fact-finding process." In this particular instance, given other corroborating evidences and circumstances surrounding crime commission were present along with non-testifying accomplice’s statement which was found reliable enough due to spontaneity and close temporal proximity with crime event itself - hence no violation occurred.

In the dissenting opinion for Dutton v. Evans, Justice Brennan, joined by Justices Douglas and Marshall, argued that the majority's decision violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. The dissent focused on a statement made by an accomplice of Evans', which was admitted as evidence during trial despite being hearsay. This statement implicated Evans in a murder but he had no opportunity to cross-examine its source due to his death before trial. The dissenters believed this denied Evans' constitutional rights and could have influenced the jury’s verdict unfairly since it came from an unavailable witness with potential credibility issues. They also criticized the majority's reliance on factors like corroborating evidence or reliability of hearsay statements instead of strictly adhering to confrontation clause principles.