In the 1947 case Bute v. Illinois, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's constitutional rights were not violated if they did not have legal representation during their trial in state court, as long as it was deemed fair. The two defendants, Bute and Johnson, had been convicted of separate crimes in Illinois without being offered counsel or informed about their right to one. They appealed on grounds that this constituted a violation of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. However, the Supreme Court upheld both convictions with a 5-4 decision stating that while federal courts must provide counsel for indigent defendants (as per an earlier ruling), states were only required to do so when circumstances rendered trials without counsel unfair.

In the dissenting opinion for Bute v. Illinois, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the defendants were denied their constitutional rights due to lack of counsel during their trials. He stressed that it was not enough for a defendant to merely be informed of his right to counsel; rather, he must also understand this right and its implications fully. The justice pointed out that in cases where the accused is poor or illiterate, they may not comprehend these rights without assistance from an attorney. Therefore, he believed that legal representation should be provided by default unless explicitly waived by a competent defendant who understands what they are giving up. In essence, Justice Murphy's dissent emphasized the importance of ensuring all individuals have equal access to justice regardless of socio-economic status or education level.