In the 1907 case of Carrington v. United States, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on an issue concerning a defendant's right to a fair trial and impartial jury. The appellant, Carrington, was charged with murder in Indian Territory (now Oklahoma) and convicted by a jury that included individuals who had formed an opinion about his guilt prior to hearing any evidence or testimony during the trial. On appeal, he argued that this violated his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment which guarantees defendants in criminal prosecutions have the right to be tried by an "impartial jury". The Supreme Court agreed with Carrington’s argument stating that it is essential for jurors not only be unbiased but also appear so. It held that if there are reasonable grounds for believing that a juror has prejudged facts necessary for conviction before hearing any evidence then they should be disqualified from serving on such cases as it violates principles of due process and fair trials guaranteed under Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Carrington v. United States, Justice Harlan argued that the majority's decision to uphold a conviction based on evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure was fundamentally flawed. He contended that this ruling violated the Fourth Amendment rights of citizens against unreasonable searches and seizures. Harlan believed that any evidence acquired in such a manner should be deemed inadmissible in court, regardless of its relevance or significance to the case at hand. He warned that allowing such practices would set a dangerous precedent where law enforcement could disregard constitutional protections with impunity as long as they were able to secure incriminating evidence. This, he feared, would lead to widespread abuses of power and erosion of civil liberties.