In the 2005 case of Paul Allen Dye v. Gerald Hofbauer, Warden, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him is violated when a non-testifying co-defendant's confession implicating both defendants is admitted at their joint trial. The case originated from an incident in which Dye and his co-defendant were charged with murder. At their joint trial, the judge allowed into evidence statements made by the co-defendant that implicated both men in the crime but did not allow cross-examination of this evidence as it would violate his Fifth Amendment rights against self-incrimination. This led to Dye being convicted based partly on these unchallenged statements. Dye appealed arguing that he had been denied his constitutional right under Confrontation Clause of Sixth Amendment which guarantees criminal defendants' right to face those who testify against them. However, Supreme Court declined review without comment leaving lower court’s decision intact thus upholding conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Paul Allen Dye v. Gerald Hofbauer, Warden, 2005, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief to Dye was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that the state court had made an unreasonable determination of facts in light of evidence presented during trial and thus violated Dye’s Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by allowing him to be tried as an adult without a proper hearing. They contended that this case should have been remanded back to lower courts for further proceedings because there were unresolved issues regarding whether or not his rights were violated when he was automatically transferred from juvenile court jurisdiction due solely on account of his age at time of offense rather than considering other factors such as maturity level or criminal history which could potentially impact sentencing decisions.