In the case of Molinaro v. New Jersey, 1969, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a fugitive from justice could not seek relief from legal proceedings in his absence. The defendant, Michael Molinaro was convicted on charges of illegal gambling operations and conspiracy but fled before sentencing. While still a fugitive, he appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that evidence used against him had been obtained illegally through wiretapping without warrant which violated his Fourth Amendment rights. However, the court dismissed his appeal stating "No persuasive reason exists why this Court should proceed to adjudicate between a State and an individual who has deliberately disentangled himself from the orderly processes of justice." This ruling established precedent for denying appeals or other forms of judicial relief to individuals actively evading law enforcement.

In the Molinaro v. New Jersey case, a dissenting opinion was not explicitly provided by any of the justices. However, it can be inferred that those who might have disagreed with the majority's decision could argue on grounds related to procedural fairness and respect for court processes. The defendant in this case had fled while his appeal was pending, which led to him being denied representation before the Supreme Court due to his fugitive status. Dissenting voices may contend that despite his actions, he still deserved legal representation as part of due process rights under U.S law or question whether fleeing should automatically result in forfeiture of one's right to appeal their conviction.