The Griffin v. California case in 1964 was a significant decision by the U.S. Supreme Court that reinforced the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. The defendant, Edward Dean Griffin, had been convicted of murder and during his trial, both the prosecutor and judge highlighted to jurors that he did not testify on his own behalf - implying guilt from silence. On appeal to the Supreme Court, it was ruled this violated Griffin's constitutional rights as it penalized him for exercising his right not to incriminate himself under oath. The court held that neither prosecutors nor judges can suggest a defendant’s failure to testify indicates their guilt; such comments are now considered unconstitutional due to this ruling.

In the dissenting opinion for Griffin v. California, Justice John Marshall Harlan II argued that the Fifth Amendment's self-incrimination clause should not be applicable to state courts through the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that each state should have its own autonomy in deciding how to handle a defendant's silence at trial. According to him, it was not necessarily improper for a prosecutor or judge to comment on a defendant’s failure to testify because such comments did not compel testimony but merely drew attention to its absence. Furthermore, he contended that this practice had been long accepted in many states and there was no compelling reason for overturning these established laws and procedures based on an overly broad interpretation of constitutional protections against self-incrimination.