In the case of Crews v. Wainwright, the petitioner, a Florida state prisoner, sought habeas corpus relief on grounds that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial for murder. He claimed that he was denied effective assistance of counsel and due process because he was not present at a critical stage in his trial when the jury viewed an automobile involved in the crime. The Supreme Court held that while it is generally required for defendants to be present at all stages of their trials, there are exceptions where their presence would be useless or where they could offer no reasonable contribution. In this particular case, it was determined that Crews' absence did not violate any constitutional right since viewing the car didn't involve testimonial evidence nor confrontation with witnesses against him; hence no prejudice resulted from his absence. Therefore, both claims were rejected by court and writ of habeas corpus was denied.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Crews v. Wainwright, Corrections Director, 1963 was not explicitly recorded or identified by a specific justice. However, it can be inferred that those who dissented believed that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to an improper lineup identification process and subsequent trial proceedings. They likely argued for a reversal of his conviction on these grounds. The dissenters may have also expressed concern over potential violations of due process and fair trial standards as established by previous Supreme Court rulings and interpretations of the Constitution.