In the case of Joseph Williams v. United States, 1991, the Supreme Court examined whether a defendant's right to due process was violated when he was sentenced based on information from a presentence report that he had not been given an opportunity to deny or explain. The court ruled in favor of the government and upheld Williams' sentence. It held that no constitutional error occurs when a trial judge considers uncrossed-examined testimony contained in a pre-sentence report unless it is demonstrated that the defendant has been denied an opportunity to rebut this information at sentencing or if it is shown that the disputed information is materially false or unreliable. This decision clarified how courts should handle contested facts during sentencing proceedings and affirmed judges' discretion in considering various sources of information while determining appropriate sentences.

In the dissenting opinion for Joseph Williams v. United States, Justice Thurgood Marshall argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and violated the defendant's constitutional rights. He contended that a criminal conviction should be based on proof beyond reasonable doubt of every fact necessary to constitute the crime charged, not just some facts as determined by a judge or jury. In this case, he believed there was insufficient evidence to prove intent - an essential element in establishing guilt for attempted robbery under federal law. Furthermore, he criticized how trial courts were allowed to make determinations about sufficiency of evidence without considering all relevant factors such as credibility of witnesses and weight given to their testimony which could potentially lead to wrongful convictions due to bias or error in judgment.