In Herring v. New York, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that a state law allowing judges to prevent attorneys from making closing arguments in bench trials was unconstitutional. The case arose when an attorney for a man accused of loitering was not allowed to make his final argument before the judge rendered his verdict, as per New York's existing law at that time. The court held this practice violated the defendant’s Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel and Fourteenth Amendment due process rights under the United States Constitution because it denied defendants their full opportunity to present their defense effectively through legal representation.

In the dissenting opinion for Herring v. New York, Justice White argued that there was no constitutional violation in a trial judge's decision to deny closing arguments in a non-jury criminal case. He contended that the majority failed to consider adequately the traditional authority of judges over courtroom proceedings and ignored historical evidence suggesting that closing arguments are not an essential part of due process rights. Furthermore, he asserted that it is within a judge’s discretion to determine whether or not summations would be helpful or merely repetitive and time-consuming. Therefore, according to him, as long as defendants have had ample opportunity throughout their trials to present their cases fully and fairly through examination of witnesses and presentation of evidence - which they did in this case - then denying them closing statements does not infringe upon their right to fair trials.