In the case of Anderson v. Johnson, Warden in 1967, petitioner Robert Lee Anderson was convicted for first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a California court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had been denied effective counsel during his trial due to his lawyer's failure to object when evidence obtained through an illegal search was presented against him. The Supreme Court ruled in favor of Anderson, stating that it is a violation of constitutional rights if defense counsel fails to object when illegally seized evidence is introduced at trial. This decision emphasized the importance of competent legal representation and reinforced protections against unlawful searches and seizures under the Fourth Amendment.

In the dissenting opinion for Anderson v. Johnson, it was argued that the majority's decision to overturn Anderson's conviction based on a lack of counsel during his preliminary hearing was misguided. The dissenting justices believed that this ruling expanded the right to counsel beyond what is constitutionally required and set an impractical precedent for future cases. They contended that not every step in a criminal proceeding requires legal representation, especially when those steps do not involve critical stages where rights could be lost or defenses waived without proper legal advice. In their view, a preliminary hearing does not meet these criteria as its purpose is merely to determine if there is enough evidence for trial rather than deciding guilt or innocence. Therefore, they disagreed with the majority’s conclusion that failure to provide counsel at such stage constituted reversible error.