In Raffel v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled that a defendant who testifies in their own defense at trial waives their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination during subsequent proceedings related to the same charges. The case involved Philip Raffel, who was charged with violating Prohibition laws. At his first trial, he did not testify and the jury could not reach a verdict; however, at his second trial on the same charges, he chose to testify in his own defense. The prosecution cross-examined him about certain issues which he had remained silent on during the first trial - this led to his conviction. He appealed arguing that using silence from an earlier proceeding as evidence of guilt violated his Fifth Amendment rights but it was rejected by both lower courts and eventually by Supreme Court too stating that once a defendant chooses to defend himself through testimony they cannot then claim protection under fifth amendment for previous silence.

In the dissenting opinion for Raffel v. United States, Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes Jr., joined by Justice Louis Brandeis, argued that a defendant's decision to testify at his second trial after remaining silent during his first should not be used against him. They contended that this violated the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The majority held that if a defendant chooses to testify in their own defense at one trial but not another, prosecutors can cross-examine them about their silence at the previous trial. However, Justices Holmes and Brandeis disagreed with this interpretation of the law as they believed it essentially punished defendants for exercising their constitutional rights and could potentially discourage them from testifying in future trials out of fear of being cross-examined about past silences.