The U.S. Supreme Court case Johnson v. Zerbst, Warden in 1937 was a landmark decision that established the right to counsel for federal criminal defendants who cannot afford their own attorneys. The petitioner, Johnson, had been convicted of felonies without being provided legal representation and he argued this violated his Sixth Amendment rights under the U.S Constitution. The court ruled in favor of Johnson stating that unless a defendant has or waives assistance of counsel, a trial resulting in imprisonment is not fair or just under the constitution's due process clause. This ruling set an important precedent for future cases involving indigent defendants' right to legal representation.

In the dissenting opinion for Johnson v. Zerbst, Justice McReynolds disagreed with the majority's ruling that a defendant in a federal criminal trial has an absolute right to counsel and if not provided one, any conviction would be unconstitutional. He argued that this interpretation of the Sixth Amendment was too broad and could lead to unnecessary complications in future cases. He pointed out that historically, defendants were only guaranteed legal representation when charged with capital offenses or other serious crimes where life imprisonment could result. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuse by defendants who might deliberately waive their right to counsel only to later claim their trials were unfair due to lack of representation.