In the case of Cardinale v. Louisiana in 1968, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a matter concerning jury selection procedures. The petitioner, Joseph Cardinale Jr., was convicted for armed robbery by a state court in Louisiana and sentenced to death. He appealed his conviction arguing that he had been denied due process because the jury selection procedure used did not allow him to question potential jurors about their views on capital punishment individually and outside the presence of other prospective jurors. However, both the State Supreme Court and U.S Supreme Court rejected this argument stating that there is no constitutional requirement mandating individual sequestered voir dire (preliminary examination) questioning regarding juror's attitudes towards capital punishment during jury selection processes.

In the dissenting opinion for Cardinale v. Louisiana, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to overturn a conviction based on an error in jury selection was misguided. He contended that there was no evidence of prejudice against the defendant resulting from this error and thus it should not be grounds for reversal. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on federal standards in interpreting state law, arguing that states should have autonomy in determining their own legal procedures unless they violate constitutional rights or principles. In his view, requiring unanimity among jurors is not a fundamental right guaranteed by due process but rather a procedural rule subject to variation between jurisdictions.