In the 1980 case Estelle, Corrections Director v. Smith, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a psychiatrist's testimony about a defendant's future dangerousness violated his Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The defendant Ernest Benjamin Smith was charged with murder in Texas and pleaded not guilty. A court-appointed psychiatrist examined him without informing him of his rights or obtaining consent for an evaluation on future dangerousness - information later used by prosecution during sentencing phase to secure death penalty verdict. The Supreme Court held this as unconstitutional because it denied Smith’s right to remain silent and have legal representation present during critical stages of trial proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for Estelle, Corrections Director v. Smith, 1980, Justice Rehnquist argued that the majority's decision expanded upon Miranda rights in a way that was not intended by the original ruling. He contended that Dr. Grigson's psychiatric examination of Smith did not constitute an interrogation as defined by Miranda because it was conducted to determine his competency to stand trial and future dangerousness if given probation or parole rather than to elicit incriminating evidence. Furthermore, he asserted that there is no constitutional right for a defendant to have counsel present during such examinations since they are not adversarial proceedings but medical inquiries aimed at evaluating mental health status. Therefore, according to him, failure of informing about this non-existent right cannot be deemed as violation of Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination.