In the Lakeside v. Oregon case of 1977, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a trial judge's decision to give jury instructions about a defendant's right not to testify did not violate the Fifth Amendment, which protects against self-incrimination. The court held that such an instruction does not compel testimony from defendants but rather emphasizes their constitutional right to remain silent if they choose so. This ruling came after Robert Lee Wright was convicted for assault in Oregon and appealed his conviction on grounds that he had been compelled into testifying by the judge’s instruction regarding his right not to testify. However, Justice William Rehnquist wrote for majority opinion stating these instructions were meant as safeguards and didn't infringe upon any rights protected under Fifth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Lakeside v. Oregon, Justice Brennan disagreed with the majority's decision to allow a trial judge to instruct a jury on the defendant's right not to testify in court even if it is against their wishes. He argued that this could potentially prejudice jurors against defendants who choose not to testify, as they might interpret silence as an admission of guilt. Furthermore, he contended that such instructions may confuse or mislead jurors about their role and responsibilities during deliberations. In his view, allowing judges discretion over whether or not these instructions are given infringes upon a defendant’s Fifth Amendment rights by possibly influencing how juries perceive their choice not to testify.