In the case of Singer v. United States, 1964, the defendant, Singer, was charged with mail fraud and attempted to waive his right to a jury trial in favor of a bench trial (trial by judge). The government objected and insisted on its own right for a jury trial. The Supreme Court held that while defendants have the constitutional right to demand a jury trial under Article III Section 2 and Sixth Amendment of U.S Constitution; they do not have an absolute right to refuse one. It ruled that both parties must consent before there can be waiver of this fundamental constitutional guarantee. Therefore, it upheld Singer's conviction stating that he had no unilateral authority or privilege under federal law or constitution to insist upon being tried by court alone without approval from prosecution and court itself.

In the dissenting opinion for Singer v. United States, Justice Arthur Goldberg argued that a defendant should have an absolute right to waive a jury trial in federal criminal cases. He believed this was not only consistent with historical practice and precedent but also protected by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution which guarantees defendants "the right to a speedy and public trial." According to Justice Goldberg, allowing waiver would not undermine public confidence in or understanding of judicial proceedings; on the contrary, it could enhance respect for law enforcement by demonstrating flexibility and fairness towards defendants' rights. Furthermore, he contended that denying such waivers might lead to unnecessary trials where guilt is clear-cut or undisputed - wasting resources without enhancing justice. Finally, he noted that many states already allowed jury-trial waivers without any apparent harm or controversy.