In the case of Giles et al. v. Maryland (1966), the U.S Supreme Court overturned a conviction due to prosecutorial misconduct, marking an important decision in criminal law and procedure. The defendants, Giles and Garnett were convicted for rape by a Maryland court based on evidence that was later revealed as perjured testimony from two key witnesses who had been promised leniency in their own cases in exchange for testifying against Giles and Garnett. The prosecution failed to disclose this deal with the defense which violated their constitutional rights under Brady v. Maryland (1963) requiring prosecutors to share exculpatory evidence with defense attorneys before trial. This non-disclosure led to an unfair trial resulting in wrongful convictions of both men who were sentenced to death initially but later commuted life imprisonment sentences after new trials were ordered by lower courts upon discovering these facts post-conviction.

In the dissenting opinion for Giles et al. v. Maryland, Justice Fortas argued that the majority's decision failed to adequately address the issue of racial discrimination in jury selection. He emphasized that it was not enough for a state to simply deny allegations of discrimination; they must also provide evidence proving their impartiality in selecting jurors. Furthermore, he criticized the majority's reliance on procedural technicalities and urged them to consider whether or not there had been a violation of constitutional rights instead. In his view, if any form of racial bias existed in jury selection processes then this would constitute an infringement upon these rights and should be addressed accordingly by the court.