In Rogers v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving grand jury testimony and perjury. The petitioner, Mary Frances Rogers, was convicted of perjury after she gave false testimony to a grand jury investigating corruption in the General Services Administration (GSA). She later recanted her statements during the same proceeding but was still charged with perjury for her initial false statements. On appeal, Rogers argued that since she had corrected her false statement within the same continuous court proceeding before it had substantially affected the process or closed off an avenue of inquiry by investigators, she should not be held liable for perjury. The Supreme Court disagreed and upheld her conviction in a 5-4 decision. They reasoned that allowing witnesses to lie without consequence as long as they correct their falsehoods at some point would undermine the integrity of judicial proceedings and potentially encourage dishonesty rather than deter it.

In the dissenting opinion for Rogers v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction of contempt against a grand jury witness who refused to answer questions after being granted immunity was incorrect. The dissenters believed that the petitioner should not have been held in contempt because she had valid reasons for refusing to testify due to her fear of self-incrimination and potential perjury charges. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of "transactional immunity," arguing that it does not provide absolute protection from prosecution but only shields witnesses from being prosecuted based on their own testimony. Furthermore, they contended that forcing someone to testify under these circumstances violates their Fifth Amendment rights and undermines public trust in the justice system.