In Massachusetts v. Meehan, the U.S Supreme Court in 1979 ruled on a case involving the rights of an individual to refuse self-incrimination during police questioning. The defendant, Robert Meehan, was convicted for murder after he confessed to committing the crime while under police custody without being informed of his right to remain silent or have legal counsel present. He appealed his conviction arguing that it violated his Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights as established by Miranda v. Arizona (1966). However, the Supreme Court upheld Meehan's conviction stating that he had voluntarily waived these rights when he initiated further conversation with law enforcement officers after initially asserting them during interrogation. The court held that once a suspect has been advised of their Miranda Rights and chooses not to exercise them immediately but later initiates dialogue with law enforcement officials about their case, they effectively waive those protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Massachusetts v. Meehan, it was argued that the majority's decision to allow a prosecutor to use peremptory challenges in order to remove jurors who had expressed reservations about capital punishment undermined the impartiality of juries and violated defendants' constitutional rights. The dissent emphasized that while prosecutors have an interest in securing convictions, they also have a duty to ensure justice is served by seeking impartial juries. It was contended that using peremptory challenges as a tool for excluding those opposed or skeptical of capital punishment created biased juries predisposed towards conviction and death sentences. This practice was seen as fundamentally unfair and contrary to principles of due process under law.