In the 1970 case of Odom v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a defendant's right to cross-examine witnesses was violated when he was not allowed to question a witness about his probationary status. The defense argued that this information could have been used to challenge the credibility of the witness. However, in its decision, the court held that there had been no violation of constitutional rights as it found no evidence indicating that knowledge of such probationary status would significantly impact on an assessment of reliability or truthfulness by jury members. Therefore, limiting cross-examination regarding this matter did not infringe upon any Sixth Amendment rights and thus upheld Odom’s conviction for bank robbery.

In the dissenting opinion for Odom v. United States, the justice argued that the majority's decision to uphold Odom's conviction was flawed because it relied on an overly broad interpretation of what constitutes "possession" under federal narcotics laws. The justice contended that while Odom may have had access to and control over the premises where drugs were found, this did not necessarily mean he had possession of those drugs in a legal sense. They further noted that there was no direct evidence linking him to these substances or showing his knowledge about their presence. Therefore, they believed it was wrong to infer guilt solely based on circumstantial evidence and without more concrete proof of actual possession or involvement in drug activities.