In Reck v. Pate, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a confession obtained from an individual with mental illness could be used as evidence in court. The petitioner, James Reck, was convicted of murder based on his confession while he was hospitalized for schizophrenia and under heavy medication. He appealed his conviction arguing that his confession had been coerced and that it should not have been admitted into evidence because he did not voluntarily waive his right to remain silent due to his mental state at the time of questioning. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Pate (the warden), upholding Reck's conviction by a 5-4 vote. The majority held that even though Reck suffered from mental illness, there was no clear proof showing that he didn't understand what he was doing when confessing or waiving rights; therefore, the trial judge acted within discretion admitting the confessions into evidence. However, this case is significant as it sparked debate about how law enforcement interacts with mentally ill individuals during interrogations and led to increased scrutiny over obtaining valid waivers of constitutional rights from such individuals.

In the dissenting opinion for Reck v. Pate, Justice Frankfurter disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Reck's conviction on grounds of insufficient evidence and violation of due process rights. He argued that there was enough circumstantial evidence presented at trial to support a guilty verdict and that it was not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction to reevaluate this evidence or question its sufficiency. Furthermore, he contended that no constitutional issues were raised during Reck’s original trial or appeal in state court; therefore, they should not be considered by the Supreme Court now. In his view, raising these issues so late in proceedings undermines both federalism principles and respect for state courts’ ability to interpret their own laws correctly.