In the 1934 case of Escoe v. Zerbst, Warden, the United States Supreme Court ruled that a federal probationer has a right to legal representation and due process before his probation can be revoked. The petitioner, Escoe, was serving five years on probation for violating Prohibition laws when he allegedly violated his parole conditions by leaving his district without permission and failing to report to his parole officer. He was arrested and imprisoned without being given an opportunity for a hearing or legal counsel. The court held that while revocation of parole is not part of criminal prosecution and thus does not require all constitutional protections afforded at trial, it still requires some level of due process under the Fourteenth Amendment because it affects personal liberty.

In the dissenting opinion for Escoe v. Zerbst, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's decision that a probationer must be physically present at a revocation hearing. He argued that this requirement was not explicitly stated in federal law and could potentially disrupt the efficient administration of justice by requiring courts to summon individuals from far distances for hearings. Furthermore, he contended that due process does not necessarily require physical presence but rather an opportunity to be heard and defend oneself - which can also occur through counsel or written statements. Thus, according to Justice McReynolds' dissenting view, as long as probationers are given adequate notice and an opportunity to contest their charges, they do not need to be physically present at revocation proceedings.