In the 1962 case of Namet v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on issues related to a defendant's right to confront witnesses against them and their right not to incriminate themselves. The court held that when a witness refuses to answer questions based on their Fifth Amendment rights, it does not automatically mean there has been an infringement upon the defendant's Sixth Amendment rights (right to confrontation). However, if this refusal creates unfair prejudice or inferences against the defendant, then it may be considered as such. In this particular case involving illegal gambling operations charges, two key government witnesses refused to testify invoking their Fifth Amendment privilege against self-incrimination. The defense argued that these refusals violated his Sixth Amendment right because they implied guilt by association with individuals involved in criminal activity who were unwilling or unable to deny it under oath. But the Supreme Court disagreed stating that no constitutional violation occurred since neither prosecution nor judge encouraged jurors towards any adverse inference from non-testifying co-defendants' silence.

The dissenting opinion in the case of NAMET v. UNITED STATES argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles regarding witness privilege and self-incrimination. The dissent contended that, by allowing the prosecution to comment on a defendant's refusal to answer questions based on their Fifth Amendment rights, it could potentially prejudice jurors against them. They also disagreed with the majority's view that this issue had been waived because it wasn't raised at trial or in an appeal court; they believed this was too important an issue concerning constitutional rights to be disregarded due to procedural oversight. Furthermore, they expressed concern about how such rulings might affect future cases where defendants invoke their right against self-incincrimination.