In Raley et al. v. Ohio, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of four individuals who were convicted for refusing to answer questions during a state legislative investigation into alleged communist activities in Ohio. The defendants had invoked their right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment and Article I, Section 10 of the Ohio Constitution but were still held in contempt by the state legislature and subsequently convicted by an Ohio court. The Supreme Court overturned these convictions on appeal, stating that it was unconstitutional to punish someone for invoking their constitutional rights when they have been misled or misinformed about those rights by officials conducting an investigation or trial. In this case, investigators had incorrectly informed defendants that they could invoke their right against self-incrimination without penalty. This ruling reinforced protections provided under both federal and state constitutions regarding self-incrimination while also emphasizing government responsibility to accurately inform citizens about these protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Raley et al. v. Ohio, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established principles of due process and fundamental fairness. He contended that when state officials mislead individuals about their constitutional rights, it is fundamentally unfair to then punish those individuals for actions taken based on this misinformation. In this case, he believed that the defendants were misled into believing they had immunity from prosecution if they invoked their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination before a state legislative committee - only to later be prosecuted for contempt when they did so. Justice Brennan also disagreed with the majority's view that there was no evidence of intentional deception by state officials in this case; he pointed out several instances where such deception could reasonably be inferred.