In the case of Mintzes, Warden v. Buchanon in 1984, the Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him had been violated when a transcript of his co-defendant's trial testimony was admitted into evidence at his own trial. The co-defendant refused to testify based on Fifth Amendment grounds and thus could not be cross-examined by the defense. The court ruled that this did indeed violate the defendant's rights under the Confrontation Clause of the Sixth Amendment because he did not have an opportunity for effective cross-examination. This decision emphasized how crucial it is for defendants to have an opportunity to challenge testimonial evidence used against them in order for trials to be fair and just.

In the dissenting opinion for Mintzes, Warden v. Buchanon, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling granting habeas corpus relief to an inmate on death row was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the defendant had not exhausted all available state remedies before seeking federal intervention as required by law. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of whether or not certain evidence should have been admitted during trial and its impact on jury deliberations. Furthermore, they questioned if there were any constitutional violations in this case warranting federal interference in a state criminal proceeding at all. Ultimately, they felt that these issues should be left up to individual states' courts rather than being decided upon by federal judges who may lack familiarity with specific local laws and procedures.