The In re Bonner case in 1893 involved a petitioner, Mr. Bonner, who was held in contempt of court and sentenced to imprisonment by the Supreme Court of the District of Columbia for refusing to answer certain questions while under oath as a witness before a grand jury. The U.S Supreme Court ruled that Mr. Bonner had no right to refuse answering these questions on grounds that his answers might incriminate him unless there was evident danger of self-incrimination from direct answers. The court also stated that it is not enough for a witness simply to declare he will be incriminated but must show how he will be so from answering any question which may lead up thereto; otherwise, every witness could place himself beyond reach of examination by merely saying his testimony would criminate him.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Bonner, 1893, argued that the petitioner should not be held in contempt for refusing to answer questions before a grand jury. The justice believed that the court had overstepped its bounds by compelling testimony without providing immunity from prosecution. He contended that this violated the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination and was an abuse of power by the judiciary. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority's interpretation of "contempt," arguing it should only apply to actions disrupting court proceedings or disrespecting judicial authority rather than refusal to testify due to constitutional protections. This view emphasized individual rights and limitations on government power.