In the 1898 case Winston v. United States, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a criminal defendant cannot be forced to provide self-incriminating testimony in court. The case involved William A. Winston who was indicted for perjury and refused to answer certain questions during his trial on grounds of self-incrimination as protected by the Fifth Amendment of the Constitution which states that no person "shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself." The lower courts held him in contempt for refusing to testify but upon appeal, the Supreme Court reversed this decision stating that forcing someone to give evidence against themselves would violate their constitutional rights under American law.

In the dissenting opinion for Winston v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the court's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through a forced confession was in violation of both constitutional law and common decency. He contended that confessions extracted under duress or fear are inherently unreliable and should not be admissible in court. Furthermore, he asserted that such practices were reminiscent of those used by tyrannical governments, which have no place in American jurisprudence. The use of force to obtain confessions is an affront to individual rights and liberties protected by the Constitution; it undermines public confidence in the justice system and erodes respect for law enforcement agencies involved. Thus, according to Justice Harlan’s dissenting view, any legal proceeding tainted with coerced testimony should be deemed invalid as it contradicts fundamental principles upon which America's legal system rests.