In the 1992 case of Terry Lynn Stinson v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant's right to due process was violated when he was not allowed to present evidence that would have impeached a key witness for the prosecution. The court held that it did not violate his rights because there were other ways in which he could have challenged the credibility of this witness. This decision reinforced previous rulings stating that defendants do not have an absolute right to use any type of impeachment evidence they wish, but rather must adhere to rules and procedures set forth by law.

In the case of Terry Lynn Stinson v. United States, 1992, there was no recorded dissenting opinion from any justice on the Supreme Court bench. The court denied certiorari, meaning it refused to review the lower court's decision and thus upheld its ruling without providing an explanation or detailed opinion. Therefore, a summary of a dissenting opinion for this particular case cannot be provided as none exists in public record.