Ex parte William Many was a case heard by the United States Supreme Court in 1852. The petitioner, William Many, had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Louisiana. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had not received due process under the law as required by the Fifth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. Specifically, he argued that he should have been allowed to present evidence at trial which would have demonstrated his innocence or reduced his sentence from capital punishment to life imprisonment without parole. The Supreme Court agreed with him and reversed his conviction because it found that Louisiana's criminal procedure did not provide for such an opportunity for defendants facing capital punishment charges like Mr. Many did at trial; thus denying him due process rights guaranteed by federal law . This decision established a precedent requiring states to allow defendants accused of serious crimes like murder access to all available evidence during their trials so they can adequately defend themselves against prosecution claims and receive fair treatment under state laws as well as federal constitutional protections

In Ex Parte William Many, the Supreme Court of the United States was asked to decide whether a state court had jurisdiction over a case involving an Indian tribe. The majority opinion held that it did not have such authority. However, Justice McLean dissented from this decision and argued that states should be allowed to exercise their own powers in cases involving Indians within their borders. He reasoned that Congress has never passed any law which would prevent them from doing so and thus they should be able to do so without interference from federal courts or agencies. Furthermore, he noted that if states were prevented from exercising their power in these matters then it could lead to serious consequences for both tribes and non-Indians living on tribal lands as well as those who are trading with them or otherwise interacting with them commercially. Ultimately, Justice McLean concluded by stating his belief that allowing states some degree of control over Indian affairs is necessary for peace between all parties involved and will ultimately benefit everyone involved in the long run.