In the case of Jesse Jay Montejo v. Louisiana, 2008, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant can waive his right to counsel during police questioning even if he has not been informed that a lawyer has been appointed for him. The court's decision overturned its previous ruling in Michigan v. Jackson (1986), which held that once a defendant requests legal representation, any waiver of this right is invalid unless it occurs in the presence of an attorney. In this case, Montejo was arrested and read his Miranda rights but did not request an attorney at first; later on when one was appointed by the court without his knowledge or request, he made incriminating statements during subsequent police interrogations without having consulted with his assigned lawyer beforehand.

In the dissenting opinion for Jesse Jay Montejo v. Louisiana, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that the majority's decision to overrule Michigan v. Jackson was a departure from established precedent without any compelling justification. He contended that this ruling undermined protections for defendants' Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogations after formal charges have been filed against them. The justice also expressed concern about potential coercion and manipulation by law enforcement in obtaining waivers of these rights from defendants who may not fully understand their implications or consequences, particularly when they are not represented by an attorney at the time of waiver. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on Miranda warnings as sufficient protection against self-incrimination risks, arguing it does not adequately safeguard a defendant’s Sixth Amendment rights once adversarial proceedings have begun.