In the case of Cash v. Culver, State Prison Custodian (1958), the United States Supreme Court addressed a petition by an inmate who was denied legal representation during his trial in a state court. The petitioner, Cash, argued that he had been deprived of his constitutional rights because he did not have counsel to represent him at his trial for burglary and larceny charges. He further claimed that this lack of representation led to an unfair conviction and sentence. However, the Supreme Court dismissed Cash's claims on procedural grounds without addressing its merits or considering whether there had been any violation of constitutional rights due to lack of counsel at trial.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Cash v. Culver argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there had been a fair determination of guilt at trial. The dissent emphasized that due process is not satisfied merely by providing an opportunity for appeal, but also requires a meaningful review of constitutional claims raised during trial proceedings. It further contended that if state courts fail to provide such review, federal courts must step in and do so themselves under their habeas corpus jurisdiction. In this particular case, they believed the defendant’s right to counsel was violated when his lawyer did not adequately represent him during his plea hearing and sentencing phase, which could have resulted in an unfair sentence being imposed on him.