In the case of Dorsie Lee Johnson, Jr. v. Texas (1992), the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a defendant's right to due process was violated when he was not allowed to cross-examine a witness about their probation status. The defendant, Dorsie Lee Johnson Jr., had been convicted of capital murder in Texas and sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction on several grounds including that he should have been permitted to question one of the prosecution’s key witnesses about her probation status at the time she testified against him as it could potentially show bias or motive for testifying falsely. The court ruled 6-3 in favor of Texas, upholding Johnson's conviction and sentence by stating that while defendants generally have wide latitude under the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause to cross-examine witnesses for potential bias or ulterior motives, this right is not absolute and can be limited if there is no significant likelihood that such questioning would produce testimony favorable to the defense.

In the dissenting opinion for Dorsie Lee Johnson, Jr. v. Texas, 1992, Justice Blackmun argued that the majority's decision violated the Eighth Amendment's prohibition of cruel and unusual punishment by allowing a death sentence to be imposed based on future dangerousness without requiring proof beyond a reasonable doubt. He contended that this standard was too vague and subjective to reliably predict an individual’s potential for future violence. Furthermore, he believed it unfairly allowed capital defendants' sentences to be determined not by their actual crimes but rather by speculative assumptions about their possible future behavior. This approach could potentially lead to arbitrary or discriminatory sentencing decisions in violation of due process rights under Fourteenth Amendment as well.