In Leyra v. Denno, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a confession obtained through psychological coercion was inadmissible as evidence. The case involved Francis Leyra who had been convicted of murdering his parents based on a confession he made while under hypnosis by a psychiatrist working with law enforcement officials. The court found that the psychiatrist's use of suggestive questioning and manipulation during these sessions amounted to psychological pressure which violated Leyra's Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights. Therefore, it overturned his conviction because it was primarily based on this coerced confession.

In the dissenting opinion for Leyra v. Denno, it was argued that the majority's decision to overturn Leyra's conviction based on a coerced confession undermined established legal principles and set a dangerous precedent. The dissenters believed that there was no evidence of coercion or duress in obtaining Leyra’s confessions, as he had been advised of his rights and chose to waive them voluntarily before confessing to the crime. They also pointed out that both state courts had found these confessions voluntary after thorough examination. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view about psychiatrist’s role during interrogation; instead arguing that using psychological techniques does not necessarily equate to coercion or manipulation if used ethically and professionally within acceptable limits. Therefore, according to them, this ruling could potentially discourage law enforcement agencies from employing legitimate investigative methods while dealing with suspects who might be mentally unstable or vulnerable.