In Rollerson v. United States (1968), the defendant, Rollerson, was convicted of robbery in a District of Columbia court and sentenced to prison. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to certain evidence presented by the prosecution during trial. The Supreme Court rejected this argument, stating that failure to object does not necessarily constitute ineffective assistance if it could be considered part of a reasonable legal strategy. Furthermore, even if an objection should have been made but wasn't, it doesn't automatically mean that the defense was inadequate or prejudiced against him unless there's proof showing otherwise.

The dissenting opinion in the Rollerson v. United States case argued that the majority's decision to uphold Rollerson's conviction was a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically his Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination and Sixth Amendment right to counsel. The dissenting justices believed that the police had coerced Rollerson into making incriminating statements without informing him of his rights or providing access to legal representation. They also took issue with how evidence obtained through this interrogation was used at trial, arguing it should have been excluded as it was unlawfully obtained. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Miranda v. Arizona (1966), believing that its protections should apply even when an individual is not formally under arrest but merely detained for questioning by law enforcement officers.