In the 1962 case of Ex parte George, the U.S. Supreme Court dealt with a petitioner who was convicted in California for first-degree murder and sentenced to death. The petitioner claimed that his constitutional rights were violated as he was denied counsel during police interrogation, which led to a confession used against him at trial. He also argued that he had requested but been denied an opportunity to contact his family or attorney before making any statement. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these claims stating they lacked merit because there wasn't enough evidence provided by George proving that he asked for legal representation prior to confessing or whether such denial influenced his decision to confess. Furthermore, it held that since this issue could have been raised on direct appeal from conviction but wasn't pursued then; hence it cannot be considered now under collateral attack unless exceptional circumstances are shown which did not exist here.

In the dissenting opinion for Ex parte George, it was argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent emphasized that there were serious questions about whether George had been denied his constitutional right to effective assistance of counsel during his trial and appeal process. It was pointed out that George's attorney did not call any witnesses or present any evidence in defense, despite having access to potential exculpatory evidence. Furthermore, he failed to file a brief on appeal or appear at oral arguments before the state supreme court. The dissent contended these failures constituted ineffective assistance of counsel under the Sixth Amendment and warranted federal habeas corpus review.