In the United States v. Wilson et al., 1974, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must file a motion to dismiss before trial in order to claim immunity from prosecution under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment. The case involved two defendants who were convicted for bank robbery and conspiracy but did not raise their double jeopardy claims until after they had been found guilty at trial and sentenced. The court held that by failing to raise these issues prior to their trials, they waived their rights under this clause. This decision clarified when defendants need to assert certain constitutional protections in criminal proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for United States v. Wilson et al., Justice Marshall argued that the majority's decision to allow prosecutors to use a defendant's silence at arrest as evidence of guilt during trial was fundamentally unfair and violated constitutional rights. He contended that this ruling would discourage defendants from exercising their Fifth Amendment right against self-incrimination, as any silence could be used against them in court. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse by law enforcement officials who might manipulate or misinterpret a suspect’s silence. Justice Marshall also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of Miranda warnings, arguing they were designed not only to inform suspects of their rights but also to protect those rights by preventing involuntary confessions and ensuring fair trials.