In the case of Saldana v. United States, 1960, the Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a man convicted for illegal entry into the U.S. after deportation. The appellant argued that his confession to immigration officers was obtained involuntarily and should have been excluded from evidence at trial under the Fifth Amendment's protection against self-incrimination. However, he had not raised this issue during his trial or in any post-trial motions; it only came up on appeal. The Supreme Court held that since Saldana did not raise this constitutional question at an appropriate time in lower courts, it could not be considered for the first time on appeal to them. They noted that "an appellate court is slow to reverse a criminal conviction on grounds not properly presented below." Therefore, they affirmed his conviction without addressing whether or not his confession was indeed involuntary.

In the dissenting opinion for Saldana v. United States, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold Mr. Saldana's conviction despite evidence of perjury by a key witness undermined the integrity of the judicial process and violated Mr. Saldana’s constitutional right to a fair trial. The dissenting justices believed that when there is reasonable doubt about whether false testimony has been used in securing a conviction, it should be incumbent upon courts to ensure justice by setting aside such convictions rather than allowing them to stand unchallenged. They contended that this approach would better serve public confidence in our system of justice and protect individual rights against wrongful prosecution based on unreliable or dishonest testimonies.