In the case of Brookhart v. Janis, 1965, Paul Brookhart was convicted for burglary and grand larceny in Ohio state court after pleading not guilty but agreeing to a "prima facie" trial - a procedure where the prosecution's evidence is accepted as valid without cross-examination or presentation of defense evidence. The Supreme Court ruled that this violated his Sixth Amendment right to confront witnesses against him and mount a defense. Despite having counsel present at his trial, it was found that he did not intelligently waive these rights because he wasn't adequately informed about what a prima facie trial entailed nor its consequences on his rights. Therefore, the conviction was reversed by an 8-1 vote with Justice Potter Stewart delivering the opinion of the court stating that while defendants can waive many constitutional protections related to their trials; they must do so knowingly and voluntarily which had not happened in this case.

In the dissenting opinion for Brookhart v. Janis, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision was based on a misunderstanding of Ohio law and an overemphasis on federal constitutional rights at the expense of state procedural rules. He contended that under Ohio law, Brookhart had not been denied his right to counsel but had instead waived it by agreeing to a "prima facie" trial - a streamlined procedure in which only enough evidence is presented to establish guilt unless contradicted by defense. The justice believed this type of trial was constitutionally permissible as long as defendants understood what they were agreeing to and did so voluntarily. In his view, there was no reason why states should not be allowed to offer such options if they wished; he saw nothing inherently coercive or unfair about them. Furthermore, he felt that even if there were some ambiguity about whether Brookhart fully understood what he agreed to, any error would have been harmless because overwhelming evidence pointed towards his guilt.