Ex Parte Joseph Roberts was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1832. The petitioner, Joseph Roberts, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Pennsylvania. He argued that his conviction should be overturned because he had not received due process under the law at trial. Specifically, he claimed that he did not have access to witnesses or evidence necessary for him to mount an adequate defense against the charges brought against him. The court ultimately ruled in favor of Roberts and reversed his conviction on grounds that his right to due process had been violated during trial proceedings. This decision established precedent for ensuring defendants receive fair trials with full access to all relevant information so they can adequately defend themselves from criminal accusations made against them.

In Ex Parte Joseph Roberts, the Supreme Court was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over an appeal from a federal district court. The majority opinion held that the state court did not have jurisdiction and dismissed the case. However, Justice McLean dissented on this point and argued that while it may be true that Congress has exclusive authority to regulate appeals between federal courts, there is nothing in either constitutional or statutory law which prevents states from exercising concurrent jurisdiction in such cases. He further noted that if Congress intended for only one tribunal to exercise appellate power over these matters then they should have made their intention clear by passing legislation explicitly stating so. As no such legislation exists, he concluded that both state and federal courts can properly hear appeals arising out of decisions of lower federal tribunals.