In the United States v. Gary Mezzanatto case of 1994, the Supreme Court ruled that a suspect can waive his right to exclude any statements made during plea negotiations if those talks fail and he goes to trial. The defendant, Gary Mezzanatto, was charged with drug offenses and entered into plea discussions with prosecutors. He agreed that anything said could be used against him in court if no agreement was reached or if he later contradicted himself at trial. When negotiations failed and the case went to trial, prosecutors used his statements from their discussions as evidence against him. His conviction led to an appeal on grounds that Federal Rules of Evidence prohibit using such comments at trials when plea bargains fall through unless they are introduced by defendants themselves for certain purposes like contradicting prosecution's evidence or impeaching credibility of witnesses testifying against them. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating there is no general prohibition on waiving one’s rights under these rules.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Mezzanatto, Justice Ginsburg argued that prosecutors should not be allowed to use a defendant's statements made during plea negotiations against them if the deal falls through. She contended that this practice contradicts Rule 410 of Federal Rules of Evidence and Rule 11(e)(6) of Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure which were designed to encourage open discussions between defendants and prosecutors by protecting those conversations from being used in court. Ginsburg expressed concern that allowing such practices could discourage defendants from entering into plea negotiations altogether, thus undermining an essential part of the criminal justice system. Furthermore, she disagreed with the majority’s view on waiver rights stating it was inconsistent with previous rulings where courts have refused waivers due to public policy concerns.