In the case of In re Little (1971), the United States Supreme Court addressed a dispute involving an individual's right to refuse self-incrimination. The petitioner, Little, was subpoenaed by a grand jury and asked about his involvement in certain illegal activities. He refused to answer on grounds that he might incriminate himself, invoking his Fifth Amendment rights. However, he was granted immunity from prosecution under federal law but still refused to testify claiming state prosecution could occur based on his testimony. The court held that once statutory immunity has been granted at the federal level it also applies at the state level as per 18 U.S.C.A § 6002 and § 6003 which provides sweeping protection against self-incrimination extending beyond constitutional guarantees provided by Fifth Amendment thus making him immune from both Federal and State prosecutions for matters related with his compelled testimonies.

In the dissenting opinion for In re Little, 1971, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief to a petitioner who had been convicted of murder in state court was incorrect. The dissenter believed that there were significant issues with both the trial and appeal processes which should have warranted federal intervention. Specifically, they pointed out problems with jury selection and instructions given by the judge during deliberations. They also criticized how evidence from an alleged accomplice was handled and questioned whether or not this individual received proper legal counsel before testifying against Little. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain aspects of Little’s confession were used in court without adequate scrutiny regarding their validity or voluntariness. Overall, while acknowledging that federal courts must respect state convictions unless constitutional rights are violated, they felt these violations did occur in this case.