In the 1988 case Tompkins v. Texas, the United States Supreme Court addressed whether a defendant's Sixth Amendment right to counsel was violated when he did not have an attorney present during police questioning after his arrest but before formal charges were filed. The court ruled in favor of Texas, stating that the defendant's rights had not been violated because he had failed to request legal representation. This decision clarified that under Miranda v. Arizona (1966), suspects must explicitly invoke their right to counsel; it is not automatically provided unless requested by the suspect or if they are formally charged with a crime.

In the dissenting opinion for Tompkins v. Texas, the justice argued that there was a lack of clear evidence to support the majority's decision. The dissent focused on two main points: first, that there was insufficient proof to demonstrate that Tompkins had knowingly waived his right to remain silent; and secondly, it questioned whether or not he fully understood his rights before making any statements. The justice believed these factors were crucial in determining if Tompkins' confession should be admissible as evidence in court. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential violations of Miranda rights and emphasized their importance in protecting individuals from self-incrimination during police interrogations. They also pointed out inconsistencies within previous case law regarding this issue which further complicated matters.