In the case of Johnson v. Bennett, Warden in 1968, petitioner Robert L. Johnson was convicted for first-degree murder and sentenced to death by an Ohio court. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he was denied a fair trial due to prejudicial pretrial publicity and because of alleged racial discrimination during jury selection process. The Supreme Court held that there were no constitutional violations in this case as it found no evidence supporting claims of prejudice or racial bias affecting the outcome of his trial. Johnson also claimed ineffective assistance from counsel but failed to provide any substantial proof backing up these allegations. Furthermore, he argued that Ohio's capital punishment statute violated Eighth Amendment protections against cruel and unusual punishments; however, this claim too was rejected by the court citing precedent cases which upheld constitutionality of death penalty statutes similar to Ohio's. The Supreme Court affirmed lower courts' decisions denying habeas corpus relief for Johnson who had exhausted all state remedies available before seeking federal review under Habeas Corpus Act (28 U.S.C §2254). This decision underscored importance given by judiciary towards ensuring fairness in criminal proceedings while maintaining respect for states’ rights within our federal system.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson v. Bennett, it was argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated due to his inability to appeal his conviction without payment of a fee. The justice believed this constituted discrimination based on wealth and therefore infringed upon equal protection under law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, they contended that access to an appeal should be considered a fundamental right in all criminal cases, regardless of one’s financial status or ability to pay fees associated with such processes. They also expressed concern over potential abuse of power by state courts if allowed unchecked discretion in deciding who can afford an appeal process and who cannot.