In the 1961 case of Chewning v. Cunningham, Penitentiary Superintendent, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Chewning who was serving a life sentence for murder at Virginia State Penitentiary. The issue arose when Chewning's petition for habeas corpus was denied by lower courts without an evidentiary hearing on his claim that he had been denied due process because he did not have counsel during his state court trial and appeal. The Supreme Court held that this denial violated Due Process Clause of Fourteenth Amendment as it failed to provide him with a fair opportunity to present his federal claims in state courts before seeking federal habeas corpus relief. Therefore, the judgment was reversed and remanded back to district court for further proceedings consistent with its opinion.

In the dissenting opinion for Chewning v. Cunningham, Justice Douglas argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated when he was denied counsel during his trial in a Virginia court. He believed that this denial of legal representation resulted in an unfair trial and conviction. The majority ruled against Chewning on the grounds that he had not asked for a lawyer, but Douglas contended that it was unreasonable to expect an uneducated man with no knowledge of law to know how crucial having a lawyer could be for his defense. Furthermore, Douglas pointed out inconsistencies in how different states handled such situations - some automatically provided lawyers while others did not - which led him to conclude there should be uniformity across all jurisdictions regarding right-to-counsel issues.