In Garner v. Yeager, Warden, et al., the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a state could deny an indigent prisoner free transcripts of his prior mistrial to use in his defense at a subsequent trial without violating the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioner was convicted for robbery and murder but had previously faced two mistrials on these charges. He requested transcripts from those trials to prepare for his third trial but was denied due to lack of funds. The court held that denying him access violated equal protection rights as it disadvantaged him compared with defendants who could afford such materials themselves. Thus, this case established that states must provide necessary resources like transcripts for indigent defendants if they are essential for an adequate defense.

In the dissenting opinion for Garner v. Yeager, Warden et al., 1967, it was argued that the majority's decision failed to properly consider and apply relevant precedents regarding habeas corpus petitions. The dissenting justices believed that the petitioner had not exhausted all available state remedies before seeking federal relief as required by law. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'in custody' under federal habeas corpus statutes, arguing that this should be understood in a more literal sense rather than broadly interpreted to include any form of legal restraint or obligation imposed by a criminal conviction. Furthermore, they contended that even if these requirements were met, there was no constitutional violation warranting federal intervention because the petitioner received fair trials at both state levels and his claims lacked merit.