In the 1958 case Marshall v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Willie James Marshall who was convicted for selling heroin without a written order form from the buyer, which violated federal narcotics laws. The jury had been exposed to prejudicial news accounts about his prior criminal record during their deliberations despite being instructed not to read any external information related to the case. The court held that this exposure denied him a fair trial as guaranteed by due process clause of Fifth Amendment and reversed his conviction with a 5-4 decision. It concluded that even though jurors claimed they could remain impartial after reading these articles, it is impossible for them not be influenced subconsciously by such information when making their decisions.

In the dissenting opinion for Marshall v. United States, Justice Tom C. Clark disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn the conviction due to juror bias from pretrial publicity. He argued that there was no evidence of actual prejudice against the defendant among jurors and that it was unrealistic to expect jurors not to have heard anything about a case before trial in high-profile cases such as this one. Furthermore, he contended that if potential knowledge of a case were grounds for disqualification, then virtually every juror would be disqualified in many cases since news coverage is widespread and unavoidable. He also pointed out inconsistencies in how different courts had applied standards regarding jury impartiality and called for clearer guidelines on this issue.