In the Malinski et al. v. New York case of 1944, the U.S Supreme Court reviewed a conviction based on confessions obtained by police under questionable circumstances. The defendants, Malinski and another man, were accused of rape in New York state court and convicted primarily on their own confessions to law enforcement officers while they were detained without access to counsel or family members for several days after their arrest. They appealed their convictions arguing that these conditions amounted to coercion which violated their Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination as well as due process protections under the Fourteenth Amendment. The Supreme Court agreed with this argument and reversed the convictions in a 5-4 decision, holding that involuntary confessions are not admissible evidence because they violate constitutional principles of fairness and respect for individual rights inherent in due process requirements. This ruling reinforced previous decisions emphasizing that courts must consider all relevant circumstances when determining whether a confession is voluntary or coerced.

In the dissenting opinion for Malinski et al. v. New York, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately protect the defendants' constitutional rights against self-incrimination and due process of law under the Fourteenth Amendment. He believed that a confession obtained through police coercion should not be admissible in court, regardless of its truth or falsity. Furthermore, he criticized the majority’s reliance on state courts to determine whether confessions were voluntary or coerced as it could lead to inconsistent interpretations across different states and potentially undermine federal constitutional protections. He also expressed concern about potential abuses by local law enforcement if they are given too much discretion in obtaining confessions from suspects without proper safeguards in place.