In the case of James Olden v. Kentucky in 1988, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's right to confront his accuser had been violated when he was not allowed to cross-examine her about their previous romantic relationship and possible motives for accusing him of rape. The court held that this restriction infringed upon Olden's Sixth Amendment rights, which guarantee an accused person the opportunity to impeach his or her accuser's credibility through cross-examination. The trial court had prohibited such questioning due to concerns over potential prejudice against the victim; however, the Supreme Court found these reasons insufficient as they did not outweigh Olden’s constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Olden v. Kentucky, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision undermined a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him. He contended that by limiting cross-examination of a key prosecution witness about her live-in boyfriend, who was also present at the scene of alleged crime, it prevented defense from suggesting bias or ulterior motive in her testimony. This limitation could have potentially influenced jury’s perception on credibility and reliability of this witness' account which formed basis for conviction. Furthermore, he criticized lower court’s reasoning that such questioning would inject racial prejudice into trial as speculative and unfounded assumption about jurors’ potential biases without any concrete evidence supporting it.