In Roberts v. United States (1979), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a federal judge could consider a defendant's refusal to cooperate with prosecutors as a factor in determining his sentence for an unrelated crime, without violating the Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination. The case involved Marion Roberts, who was convicted of participating in an illegal gambling operation and refused to testify before a grand jury about other individuals' involvement in organized crime activities despite being granted immunity from prosecution. At sentencing for his conviction, the trial court judge gave him an increased sentence because he had not cooperated with authorities by providing information on others involved in criminal activity. On appeal, Roberts argued that this violated his Fifth Amendment rights since it punished him for remaining silent; however, the Supreme Court disagreed and upheld his enhanced sentence.

In the dissenting opinion for Roberts v. United States, Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to uphold a harsher sentence based on uncharged conduct was fundamentally unfair and contrary to principles of justice. He contended that it is inappropriate for a judge to consider allegations of criminal behavior not proven beyond reasonable doubt in court when determining a defendant’s sentence. This practice, he believed, undermines the presumption of innocence and allows judges too much discretion in sentencing decisions. Furthermore, he pointed out that this approach disproportionately affects poor defendants who cannot afford legal representation during sentencing hearings where such allegations may be considered. In conclusion, Justice Marshall disagreed with the majority's ruling because it violated basic tenets of fairness and due process rights by allowing sentences to be influenced by unproven accusations.