In Hopper et al. v. Louisiana, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of the defendants, overturning a decision by the Louisiana Supreme Court that had upheld their convictions for attempted burglary and theft. The case centered on whether or not it was constitutional to deny a defendant's request for separate trials when they were jointly indicted with another person. The defendants argued that being tried together prejudiced their cases because one defendant's confession implicated both of them, violating their rights under the Sixth Amendment to confront witnesses against them and under the Fourteenth Amendment to due process of law. In its ruling, delivered per curiam (by an unspecified justice), the U.S Supreme Court agreed with this argument and held that denying separate trials in such circumstances did indeed violate these constitutional protections.

In the dissenting opinion for Hopper et al. v. Louisiana, Justice Douglas argued that the majority's decision undermined a defendant's right to a fair trial by an impartial jury as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment of the U.S Constitution. He contended that it was unconstitutional for jurors to be instructed on lesser offenses without any request from either party involved in the case, and even when there is no evidence supporting such charges. According to him, this practice could lead juries into compromising verdicts based on sympathy or prejudice rather than facts presented during trials which would ultimately compromise justice delivery system in criminal cases.