In the case of Parker v. Randolph et al., 1978, the United States Supreme Court examined whether or not a defendant's confession could be used as evidence if it was obtained after another suspect had implicated them in their own confession. The court ruled that such confessions were admissible, even if they were made outside of each other's presence and without knowledge of what the other had said. This decision was based on an interpretation of the Sixth Amendment’s Confrontation Clause which guarantees defendants in criminal cases the right to confront witnesses against them. However, this ruling has been criticized for potentially violating a defendant's rights by allowing hearsay evidence into trials.

In the dissenting opinion for Parker v. Randolph, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision undermined a defendant's Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. He contended that allowing statements obtained in violation of these rights to be used as evidence simply because they were later corroborated by another suspect was fundamentally unjust and contrary to established legal principles. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for failing to adequately consider whether or not such confessions were truly voluntary, given the inherently coercive nature of police interrogations. In his view, this ruling could potentially encourage law enforcement officials to disregard suspects' constitutional protections with impunity.