In the case of Brockington v. Rhodes, Governor of Ohio et al., 1969, petitioner James H. Brockington challenged his conviction for first-degree murder in an Ohio state court on grounds that he was denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment to the U.S Constitution. He claimed that his attorney failed to adequately investigate and present a defense based on insanity or diminished capacity due to intoxication at trial. The Supreme Court dismissed this claim stating it lacked jurisdiction because no substantial federal question was presented in the appeal from state courts' decision upholding petitioner's conviction after reviewing records related to his mental condition and finding no evidence supporting an insanity defense or diminished capacity due to intoxication.

In the dissenting opinion for Brockington v. Rhodes, it was argued that the Supreme Court should not have dismissed the appeal as moot. The dissenting justices believed that there were still significant issues to be resolved regarding voting rights and district apportionment in Ohio's state legislature elections. They felt that dismissing this case would allow these problems to persist without proper judicial review or resolution, potentially undermining democratic processes in Ohio and setting a concerning precedent for other states facing similar issues with their electoral systems. Furthermore, they expressed concern about whether all eligible voters had been given an equal opportunity to participate in recent elections due to alleged irregularities with how districts were drawn up and seats allocated among them.