In the case of Chandler v. Warden Fretag, 1954, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Chandler who was denied his right to counsel during a state habeas corpus proceeding. The court held that when a prisoner brings forward a substantial claim challenging their conviction or sentence and requests for legal representation, it is unconstitutional to deny them this request without reasonable notice or opportunity to be heard. This ruling emphasized the importance of providing adequate legal representation for individuals facing serious criminal charges and reinforced the constitutional guarantee of due process under law.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Chandler v. Warden Freitag argued that the majority's decision to uphold a lower court ruling denying habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent contended that there were significant issues with how evidence had been obtained and used during Chandler's trial, which could have potentially violated his constitutional rights. Specifically, they pointed out concerns about whether or not certain confessions made by Chandler had been coerced through physical abuse while he was in police custody - an issue they felt should have warranted further investigation before any final judgment was passed down. They also took issue with the fact that some evidence presented at trial may have been hearsay, which is generally considered unreliable and thus not admissible in court proceedings. These factors led them to believe that Chandler did not receive a fair trial as guaranteed under U.S law, hence their disagreement with the majority's decision.