In the 1912 case of Adams v. Russell, Warden, the United States Supreme Court dealt with a habeas corpus petition from an inmate who was sentenced to death in Kentucky for murder. The petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed to have counsel present during a critical stage of his trial - specifically when the jury visited the crime scene without him or his lawyer being present. He claimed this act constituted as part of his trial and thus required legal representation under Sixth Amendment guarantees. However, after reviewing state court records and proceedings, it appeared that no objection had been made at any point about this matter by either Adams or his attorney during their original trial nor on appeal in state courts before reaching federal jurisdiction. Therefore, based on these findings and procedural grounds rather than addressing substantive issues raised by Adams regarding right to counsel implications; The U.S Supreme Court dismissed Adam's writ of habeas corpus.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Adams v. Russell, Warden, 1912 was not specifically recorded or made available in public documents. Therefore, it's impossible to provide a summary of this particular viewpoint on the case. The U.S Supreme Court often includes both majority and dissenting opinions in its published decisions; however, for some cases like this one from early 20th century, detailed records might be unavailable or non-existent.