In Carnley v. Cochran, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant must be offered counsel at trial unless they competently and intelligently decline it. The case involved petitioner Willie Carnley who was convicted of incest in Florida state court without having legal representation during his trial. He appealed to the Supreme Court arguing that he had been denied his right to counsel as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the Constitution. The State argued that Carnley waived this right because he did not specifically request an attorney; however, there was no record indicating such waiver occurred or even if Carnley knew about this constitutional right. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that courts cannot presume a waiver from a silent record and reversed Mr.Carnely's conviction on grounds of denial of assistance of counsel.

In the dissenting opinion for Carnley v. Cochran, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to reverse and remand was based on a misinterpretation of precedent and an incorrect application of constitutional principles. He contended that there was no evidence in the record indicating that petitioner did not understand his right to counsel or waive it knowingly and intelligently. The trial judge had informed him about this right before he pleaded guilty, but he chose to proceed without an attorney anyway. According to Justice Harlan, this constituted a valid waiver under federal law at the time, which only required defendants be aware of their rights rather than fully comprehend all potential consequences of waiving them. Furthermore, he believed it wasn't necessary for judges to explicitly ask defendants if they understood these rights since most would likely say yes regardless due to fear or embarrassment.