In the 1968 case In re Herndon, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of a petitioner who had been denied parole due to his refusal to admit guilt for a crime he claimed not to have committed. The court held that it was unconstitutional for parole boards to deny an inmate's release solely based on their maintaining innocence. This decision established that inmates could not be compelled into confessing guilt as a condition of their freedom, upholding principles of Fifth Amendment protections against self-incrimination and Fourteenth Amendment guarantees of due process rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Herndon, 1968, argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling was incorrect. The dissenters believed that there were significant procedural errors made during Herndon's trial which should have resulted in his conviction being overturned. They pointed out inconsistencies and contradictions within witness testimonies used against Herndon and criticized the lack of physical evidence linking him to the alleged crime. Furthermore, they contended that racial bias may have influenced both his arrest and subsequent conviction due to prevalent discriminatory practices at the time. Therefore, they felt it was unjust for these factors not to be taken into consideration by their fellow justices when making their final decision on this case.