In Hamilton v. Alabama, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Clarence Earl Hamilton who was convicted for burglary without legal representation present during his arraignment in an Alabama court. The state law did not require counsel at this stage and thus denied him one despite his request, arguing that he could have pleaded later with a lawyer's assistance. However, the Supreme Court held that due to complexities involved in such proceedings which laymen might not comprehend fully, it is essential to provide defendants with counsel from the beginning of their trial process including arraignments where significant rights may be relinquished unknowingly by them if unaided legally. This decision emphasized on right to counsel as fundamental and requisite for ensuring fair trials under Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause thereby overturning Hamilton's conviction.

The dissenting opinion in Hamilton v. Alabama argued that the majority's decision to reverse the conviction was based on a misinterpretation of previous case law and an overextension of constitutional rights. The dissent contended that there was no violation of due process, as the defendant had been given ample opportunity to consult with counsel before arraignment and chose not to do so. They also pointed out that under Alabama state law, pleas could be changed at any time up until trial, meaning the defendant wasn't irreversibly prejudiced by entering a plea without counsel present. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's assertion that arraignment is a critical stage in criminal proceedings requiring legal representation; instead arguing it is merely procedural and does not determine guilt or innocence. Thus, they believed there were no grounds for reversing the conviction.