In the Osborne v. Florida case of 1896, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning double jeopardy and self-incrimination. The defendant, Osborne, was charged with larceny in Florida state court but refused to testify against himself during trial based on his Fifth Amendment rights. However, under Florida law at that time, if a defendant chose not to testify it could be used as evidence of guilt. After being convicted and sentenced to prison for five years by the lower courts, he appealed his conviction arguing that this violated his constitutional right against self-incrimination. The Supreme Court upheld Osborne's conviction stating that while defendants have protection from federal government actions under the Fifth Amendment's Self-Incrimination Clause; these protections did not extend to individual states' proceedings or laws due to dual sovereignty doctrine - which allows both federal and state governments jurisdiction over certain legal matters without violating double jeopardy clause.

In the dissenting opinion for Osborne v. Florida, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of proper legal representation during his trial. The dissenting justices believed that this violation was significant enough to warrant a new trial. They pointed out that while the defendant did have an attorney present at his arraignment, he did not have one during critical stages of his trial such as when evidence against him was presented and witnesses testified on behalf of the prosecution. This absence denied him effective assistance of counsel which is guaranteed by Sixth Amendment rights under U.S Constitution, thus making his conviction unconstitutional according to them.