In the case of Whitfield v. Ohio in 1935, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning due process and self-incrimination rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The appellant, Whitfield, was convicted for first-degree murder in an Ohio state court. During his trial, he did not testify on his own behalf; however, this fact was commented upon by both prosecution and judge during proceedings - which Whitfield argued violated his right against self-incrimination as protected by federal law. Upon appeal to the Supreme Court, it held that while such comments might be considered error under federal rules of criminal procedure (which prohibit comment on a defendant's failure to testify), they do not necessarily constitute a violation of constitutional rights when made in state courts. Therefore, no infringement of due process had occurred according to Fourteenth Amendment standards applicable at that time.

In the dissenting opinion for Whitfield v. Ohio, it was argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through wiretapping violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. The dissenting justices believed that wiretapping constituted an invasive search without proper warrant or probable cause, thus infringing upon individual privacy rights. They contended that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent where law enforcement could freely intrude into private communications with impunity. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuses of power by authorities if left unchecked by judicial oversight and constitutional safeguards. This perspective emphasized strict adherence to constitutional principles in order to protect civil liberties from unwarranted government intrusion.