In the Ex Parte Roe case of 1913, a man named Roe was convicted for embezzlement in the state of New York. He fled to Canada before his sentencing and was later arrested in Vermont on unrelated charges. The governor of New York requested that he be extradited back to face his punishment, but Roe contested this extradition arguing that since he had not been present at his own trial or sentencing, it violated his constitutional rights under the Sixth Amendment which guarantees an accused person's right "to be confronted with the witnesses against him." However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that these protections did not apply because they were procedural safeguards meant for trials and did not extend to post-conviction proceedings such as sentencing. Therefore, even though he wasn't physically present during these events due to fleeing jurisdiction after conviction but prior to sentence imposition; it didn't infringe upon any constitutionally protected rights.

The dissenting opinion in the Ex Parte Roe case argued that the majority's decision to uphold a contempt of court charge against Mr. Roe was incorrect and overly punitive. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Roe had not been given sufficient opportunity to defend himself or explain his actions before being charged with contempt, which they viewed as a violation of his due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of what constitutes "obstruction" in a legal proceeding, arguing that Mr. Roe's refusal to answer certain questions during his bankruptcy hearing did not rise to this level and should not have resulted in such severe penalties.