In the case of In re Whittington (1967), the United States Supreme Court dealt with a habeas corpus petition. The petitioner, Whittington, was convicted in Texas state court for burglary and sentenced to 50 years imprisonment. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object when the prosecution introduced evidence obtained through an illegal search and seizure. However, both the Texas Court of Criminal Appeals and federal district court dismissed his claims without holding evidentiary hearings. Whittington then filed a writ of certiorari to the U.S Supreme Court which remanded this case back to District Courts for further proceedings consistent with its opinion. The Supreme Court held that if facts are in dispute regarding whether or not there has been an infringement upon constitutional rights, it is necessary for courts to hold evidentiary hearings before making decisions on such matters.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Whittington, 1967 argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant constitutional issues at stake regarding due process and equal protection under the law. They contended that Whittington had not been given a fair trial because he did not have effective legal representation during his original court proceedings. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation of 'harmless error', arguing instead that any violation of a defendant’s constitutional rights should be taken seriously and could potentially affect the outcome of a trial. Therefore, they felt it was necessary for Whittington to receive another trial where his rights would be fully protected.