In the 1941 case of Lisenba v. California, Robert James Lisenba appealed his conviction for murder on the grounds that he was subjected to physical and psychological coercion during police interrogation, thereby violating his Fourteenth Amendment rights to due process. He also claimed that evidence used against him in court had been obtained illegally. The U.S Supreme Court upheld Lisenba's conviction by a vote of 5-4, ruling that while confessions extracted through brutality are not admissible as evidence, there was no clear proof of such treatment in this instance. Furthermore, they found no violation of due process since state courts had already determined the confession voluntary under state law and federal review did not find it involuntary under federal standards either.

In the dissenting opinion for Lisenba v. California, Justice Roberts argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to several factors in his trial process. He believed that Robert James was coerced into confessing through physical and psychological pressure by police officers over a long period of detention without formal charges or access to counsel. This confession was then used as evidence against him in court, which Roberts saw as an infringement on his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. Additionally, he criticized the use of hearsay evidence during trial proceedings and expressed concern about potential bias from jurors who had been exposed to prejudicial pretrial publicity surrounding James' case. Overall, Justice Roberts felt that these issues compromised the fairness of James' trial and thus constituted a violation of his Fourteenth Amendment right to due process.