In Riggins v. United States (1905), the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who had been convicted of murder in Nevada and was forcibly medicated with antipsychotic drugs during his trial to control his behavior. The defendant, David Riggins, argued that this violated his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment's guarantee of a fair trial and the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause. The court agreed with Riggins, ruling 7-2 that forced medication could potentially alter a defendant’s demeanor in such as way as to prejudice jurors against him or her. It also held that it is unconstitutional for states to administer involuntary medications unless they can demonstrate it is necessary to achieve an essential state interest and there are no less intrusive means available.

The Riggins v. United States case does not have a recorded dissenting opinion in 1905 or at any other time, as it pertains to the forced medication of a defendant during trial which took place in 1992. The information provided may be incorrect or incomplete. Please provide accurate details for an appropriate summary of the dissenting opinion if available.