In the Ex Parte Green case of 1931, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate named Green who was convicted in Texas for murder and sentenced to death. The petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not given adequate time to prepare his defense before trial, as required under due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. However, after reviewing the facts presented in lower courts' records, including evidence showing that Green had been represented by counsel during all stages of proceedings and had never requested more time for preparation or objected to proceeding with trial when it commenced, the Supreme Court denied his petition. The court concluded that there was no violation of constitutional rights as claimed by Green since he failed to show any prejudice suffered due to alleged inadequate preparation time.

The dissenting opinion in Ex Parte Green, 1931, argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that the petitioner had been denied his constitutional right to due process of law because he was not given a fair and impartial trial. They pointed out several instances where they felt this occurred: firstly, when the trial court refused to grant a change of venue despite widespread pretrial publicity; secondly, when it allowed evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure; thirdly, when it permitted testimony about unrelated crimes committed by the petitioner. Furthermore, they disagreed with how quickly Green’s execution date was set after his conviction - only five days later - arguing that this did not allow sufficient time for appeal or review by higher courts. In their view these factors combined meant Mr.Green did not receive justice as guaranteed under U.S constitution.