In Buchalter v. New York, 1942, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld the convictions of Louis "Lepke" Buchalter and his associates for first-degree murder. The appellants argued that their constitutional rights were violated because they were not present during a conference between the judge and a juror who had become ill during deliberations. They also claimed that they should have been granted separate trials due to prejudicial news coverage about them before trial which could influence jury's decision-making process negatively towards them. The court rejected these arguments, stating that there was no requirement for defendants to be present at every interaction between judges and jurors outside of actual courtroom proceedings as long as it did not involve matters directly related to guilt or innocence determination in their case. Regarding separate trials request, the court found no evidence showing any prejudice against them from pretrial publicity nor any compelling reason why joint trial would deny them fair treatment under law; hence denied this claim too. This ruling affirmed state courts' discretion over procedural issues like these unless clear violation of federal constitutional rights is demonstrated by defendants.

In the dissenting opinion for Buchalter v. New York, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the defendants were denied a fair trial due to prejudicial publicity and an atmosphere of hostility. He believed that there was a failure to protect the defendants' constitutional rights because of extensive pre-trial publicity, which included inflammatory newspaper articles about their criminal backgrounds and alleged activities. This media coverage created an environment in which it would be impossible for them to receive a fair trial by impartial jurors who had not been influenced by this information. Furthermore, he criticized the court's decision not to sequester the jury during such a high-profile case as another factor contributing towards bias against these individuals. In his view, these factors combined rendered any verdict reached inherently unreliable and thus unconstitutional.