In Gilbert v. United States, the Supreme Court examined whether a federal district court could deny an indigent defendant's request for a free transcript of his trial proceedings to aid in preparing an appeal. The petitioner, Jesse James Gilbert, was convicted on charges of bank robbery and sentenced to 25 years imprisonment. He requested a copy of the trial transcript but was denied due to his inability to pay for it. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that denying such requests violated equal protection principles because it discriminated against defendants based on their financial status. Therefore, all criminal defendants have a right under the Fourteenth Amendment’s Equal Protection Clause and Sixth Amendment’s guarantee of effective assistance of counsel at public expense if they cannot afford one themselves - this includes access to transcripts necessary for appeals.

In the dissenting opinion for Gilbert v. United States, Justice Hugo Black argued that the majority's decision to uphold Gilbert's conviction violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial by an impartial jury. He contended that the government had unfairly influenced potential jurors through pretrial publicity and its handling of co-defendants' guilty pleas. Black also criticized the court for allowing hearsay evidence from a deceased witness, which he believed further compromised Gilbert's ability to defend himself effectively. Furthermore, he expressed concern about how this ruling might set a dangerous precedent for future cases involving similar circumstances.