In the case of Alcorta v. Texas, 1957, petitioner Arturo Alcorta was convicted for murdering his wife. The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and a confession that he stabbed her in a fit of rage after she confessed to being unfaithful during their marriage. However, it later emerged that the prosecutor had knowingly allowed false testimony to be presented at trial; specifically from Frank Brady who testified under oath that he only danced with Mrs. Alcorta but did not have an adulterous relationship with her as claimed by Mr. Alcorta in his defense. Alcorta appealed claiming this constituted prosecutorial misconduct and violated due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment because it gave a misleading impression about his motive for murder - jealousy versus sudden passion upon discovering adultery which could reduce murder to manslaughter under Texas law. The Supreme Court agreed holding that while Brady's statement might technically be true (he didn't admit or deny adultery), its effect was just as pernicious as if he'd lied outright since prosecutors knew full well about the affair but failed to correct this misimpression thus denying him fair trial.

In the dissenting opinion for Alcorta v. Texas, Justice Tom C. Clark disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse Alcorta's conviction on grounds of prosecutorial misconduct. He argued that there was no deliberate deception by the prosecutor as he did not actively conceal any evidence from the defense; rather, it was a case of miscommunication or misunderstanding between witnesses and attorneys during pre-trial interviews which led to incomplete information being presented at trial. Furthermore, he contended that even if all facts had been disclosed fully and accurately, they would not have significantly altered the outcome of the trial given their relative insignificance in relation to other compelling evidence against Alcorta such as his confession and physical evidence linking him to crime scene.