In Douglas v. Buder, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defendant's right to counsel was violated when he was not allowed to consult with his lawyer during a brief recess in his trial. The case involved William Douglas who had been convicted of robbery in Missouri and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. During the trial, there was a short recess after which the defense attorney requested another break so he could confer with his client about new evidence presented by the prosecution but this request was denied by Judge Buder. On appeal, it went all way up to Supreme Court where it held that denying an accused person access to their counsel at critical stages of proceedings against them is unconstitutional as per Sixth Amendment rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Douglas v. Buder, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the petitioner's Sixth Amendment rights were violated when he was denied counsel during his probation revocation hearing. He contended that a probationer has a right to counsel at such hearings because they are critical stages in criminal proceedings where substantial rights may be affected or lost. The majority held that Gagnon v Scarpelli did not establish an absolute right to appointed counsel in all probation revocation cases, but rather left it up to the discretion of the judge based on individual circumstances and complexities of each case. However, Justice Douglas disagreed with this interpretation and believed that due process requires legal representation at these hearings regardless of their complexity or simplicity.