In the case of William Bracy v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden (1996), the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a defendant has the right to discovery in order to support a claim of bias on behalf of the judge who presided over his trial and sentencing. The petitioner, William Bracy, was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by Judge Thomas J. Maloney who was later convicted for accepting bribes in other cases but not specifically in Bracy's case. Bracy filed a federal habeas corpus petition arguing that he did not receive a fair trial due to Judge Maloney’s corruption and requested access to prosecutorial files from other cases handled by Maloney as evidence of potential bias or corruption affecting his own case. The District Court denied this request without holding an evidentiary hearing while Appeals court affirmed this decision stating that there wasn't enough cause shown for such discovery since no direct link between bribery and biased judgement could be established in this specific case. However, upon reaching Supreme Court it reversed these decisions ruling that if petitioner can show good cause then he may be entitled under Habeas Corpus Rule 6(a) for discovery even when it is directed at exploring judicial bias during state-court proceedings.

In the dissenting opinion for William Bracy v. Richard B. Gramley, Warden, Justice Stevens argued that there was a significant risk of racial bias in the trial due to the prosecutor's history of discriminatory practices and this warranted an investigation into his conduct during jury selection. He emphasized that it is essential to ensure fairness and impartiality in all aspects of criminal trials, including jury selection process. The fact that Thomas J Maloney (the judge who presided over Bracy’s case) was later convicted for accepting bribes further raised questions about potential corruption or misconduct during Bracy's trial proceedings which could have affected its outcome unfairly against him.