In Frazier v. United States (1948), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving the admissibility of evidence obtained through wiretapping by federal agents without a warrant. The defendant, Frazier, was convicted for conspiracy to defraud the U.S government based on evidence gathered from such wiretaps. On appeal, he argued that this violated his Fourth Amendment rights against unreasonable searches and seizures. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction in a 6-3 decision stating that while unauthorized wiretapping by federal agents is condemnable and should not be used as an investigative tool; it does not violate constitutional rights if done without trespassing onto private property since there were no explicit laws prohibiting it at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Frazier v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision violated the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights to a fair trial by an impartial jury. The dissenting justices believed that allowing jurors who had already formed an opinion about the case to serve on the jury compromised this right. They emphasized that even if these jurors claimed they could set aside their preconceived notions and judge based solely on evidence presented in court, there is no guarantee of their ability to do so objectively. Therefore, according to them, any juror with prior knowledge or opinions about a case should be disqualified from serving on its jury panel in order not only protect defendants' rights but also maintain public confidence in judicial proceedings.