In the case of Von Moltke v. Gillies, 1951, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must be offered counsel and fully understand their legal rights before waiving them. The petitioner, Mrs. Elfriede Von Moltke was convicted for conspiracy to violate the Espionage Act during World War II without having competent legal advice when she waived her right to counsel at trial. She claimed this violated her Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel in criminal prosecutions and Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination. The court held that while defendants can waive their constitutional rights, such waiver should be made with an understanding and comprehension of its consequences which includes knowledge about potential defenses available under law or facts which could influence judgment on guilt or innocence.

In the dissenting opinion for Von Moltke v. Gillies, Justice Jackson argued that the majority's decision to overturn Mrs. Von Moltke's conviction was based on an overly broad interpretation of her right to counsel under the Sixth Amendment. He contended that while she had a right to be informed about potential legal representation, it did not mean she was entitled to have an attorney present during all stages of her trial proceedings or interrogations by federal agents. Furthermore, he believed there was no evidence showing that Mrs. Von Moltke didn't understand her rights or wasn't capable of making decisions regarding her defense strategy without a lawyer present at every step in the process.