In Roberts v. Russell, the U.S. Supreme Court extended its ruling from Bruton v. United States to apply retroactively, meaning it would affect cases that had been decided before Bruton was ruled on in 1968. In the original case of Bruton, the court held that a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to cross-examine witnesses was violated when a non-testifying co-defendant's confession implicating them both was introduced at their joint trial and not supported by other evidence - even if jury instructions were given for jurors to consider each defendant separately. The decision in Roberts v Russell meant this principle applied retrospectively; therefore any convictions prior to 1968 where such confessions were used could potentially be overturned.

In the dissenting opinion for Roberts v. Russell, Justice Harlan argued that the Court's decision to apply retroactively a rule from another case (Bruton v. United States) was inappropriate and inconsistent with previous decisions on retroactivity. He contended that Bruton had established a new constitutional rule, which should not be applied to cases on collateral review if they became final before Bruton was decided. Justice Harlan believed this approach would respect the finality of judgments and avoid continuous litigation over settled cases whenever new constitutional rules are announced by the court. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how such retroactive application might affect state criminal procedures and disrupt their administration of justice.