In the case of Tague v. Louisiana, 1979, the US Supreme Court overturned a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court regarding an individual's right to counsel during police interrogation. The defendant, Tague, was arrested for drunk driving and questioned without being informed of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), which requires law enforcement officers to inform suspects in custody of their constitutional rights before questioning them. The state court ruled that since Tague had not requested legal representation during his arrest or subsequent questioning, he had effectively waived those rights - despite never having been informed about them in the first place. The U.S Supreme Court disagreed with this interpretation and reversed the ruling on appeal. They held that a suspect cannot be expected to invoke their right to counsel if they are unaware such a right exists; therefore it is incumbent upon law enforcement officials conducting custodial interrogations to ensure suspects are fully aware of these protections as per Miranda requirements.

In the dissenting opinion for Tague v. Louisiana, the justice disagreed with the majority's decision to uphold Tague's conviction despite a potentially flawed jury instruction. The justice argued that while it was true that no objection was made at trial regarding this instruction, it should not preclude appellate review of such an important constitutional issue. They believed that if there is a reasonable possibility that the jury relied on an unconstitutional understanding of law in reaching its verdict, then due process requires reversal regardless of whether or not defense counsel objected at trial. In their view, failure to object does not necessarily mean acceptance or agreement with potential errors during proceedings and thus should not be used as grounds for dismissing appeals based on these issues later on.