In the case of Garrison v. Patterson, Warden in 1967, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by a state prisoner who had been convicted for burglary and larceny. The petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not given an opportunity to consult with counsel before being placed in a police lineup, which led to his identification and subsequent conviction. However, the Supreme Court dismissed this argument stating that there was no constitutional requirement for counsel at pre-trial lineups under existing law at that time. Therefore, it upheld the decision of lower courts denying relief to Garrison.

In the dissenting opinion for Garrison v. Patterson, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner based on an alleged violation of his Sixth Amendment right to counsel during police interrogation went beyond what had been established in previous cases such as Escobedo and Miranda. The dissenting justices believed that these precedents did not automatically render confessions obtained without legal representation inadmissible, especially if they were made voluntarily and with full awareness of one's rights. They also pointed out that at the time of Garrison's trial, there was no constitutional requirement for police officers to inform suspects about their right to remain silent or have an attorney present during questioning. Therefore, they contended that applying this rule retroactively would be unfair and unjustified.