In the 1960 case Braden v. United States, petitioner George W. Braden was convicted of perjury before a federal grand jury in relation to his testimony about alleged Communist activities and affiliations. He appealed on the grounds that he had been denied due process because of pre-trial publicity and community prejudice, as well as prosecutorial misconduct during cross-examination. The Supreme Court upheld his conviction with a 5-4 decision, ruling that there was no substantial evidence supporting Braden's claims of prejudicial news coverage or community bias affecting the impartiality of jurors. The court also found no prosecutorial misconduct; instead it ruled that any aggressive questioning by prosecutors did not exceed permissible bounds but rather sought to expose contradictions in Braden's own statements. This case reinforced the principle that defendants must provide concrete proof for allegations like prejudiced juries or improper conduct from prosecutors if they wish such issues to be considered valid reasons for overturning convictions.

In the dissenting opinion for Braden v. United States, Justice Whittaker argued that the majority's decision to uphold Braden's conviction was incorrect because it violated his Fifth Amendment rights. He contended that by allowing a grand jury in Kentucky to indict Braden based on evidence gathered in Texas, where he had not been given an opportunity to testify or present witnesses on his behalf, the court denied him due process of law. Furthermore, Justice Whittaker believed that this ruling contradicted previous Supreme Court decisions which held that defendants have a constitutional right to be tried in the state where their alleged crime occurred. In essence, he felt this case set a dangerous precedent by permitting federal authorities to manipulate jurisdictional rules and conduct trials far away from where crimes were committed without any regard for defendants' rights.