In the case of Fletcher, Superintendent, Bell County Forestry Camp v. Weir (1981), the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's silence after being arrested but before receiving Miranda warnings could be used against him in court to challenge his credibility. The case involved Robert Weir who was convicted for armed robbery based on evidence he provided post-arrest and pre-Miranda warning. He appealed arguing that using his silence as part of the prosecution’s impeachment process violated his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. However, the Supreme Court disagreed stating that since he failed to assert these rights at time of arrest or during questioning prior to any formal charges being filed, they were not applicable here. Therefore, it held that prosecutors can use a suspect's silence during this period as an admission of guilt if it is later contradicted by testimony given at trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Fletcher v. Weir, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold a confession obtained without Miranda warnings because it was not prompted by police questioning. He argued that this interpretation of Miranda rights is too narrow and fails to protect individuals from self-incrimination as intended by the Fifth Amendment. According to him, any statement made in custody should be presumed coerced unless proven otherwise, regardless of whether or not it was elicited through direct interrogation. This presumption would place burden on prosecutors to prove voluntariness rather than defendants having to prove coercion. Furthermore, he criticized the Court’s reliance on Oregon v Elstad (1985) which allowed use of an unwarned but voluntary admission in court if followed up with a warned confession; he believed this undermined protections against self-incrimination and encouraged law enforcement misconduct.