In the case of McCorquodale v. State of Texas (1908), the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a state law that allowed for an individual to be tried and convicted in absentia violated their constitutional rights. The appellant, McCorquodale, had been charged with murder in Texas but fled before his trial could take place. In his absence, he was found guilty and sentenced to life imprisonment. Upon being captured and returned to Texas years later, he appealed this decision on the grounds that it violated his right to due process under the Fourteenth Amendment. The court ruled against him stating that while defendants have a right to be present at their trials under common law principles; they can waive this right through voluntary absence after proceedings have begun or by fleeing from justice as McCorquodale did. Therefore, it concluded that there was no violation of due process since he had effectively waived his own rights by absconding.

In the dissenting opinion for McCorquodale v. State of Texas, it was argued that the defendant's constitutional rights were violated due to a lack of proper legal representation during his trial. The dissenting justices believed that McCorquodale did not receive a fair trial because he was denied counsel at critical stages in his case, which they considered as an infringement on his Sixth Amendment right to have assistance of counsel for defense. They also pointed out that there were significant issues with evidence presented against him and how it was obtained, suggesting potential violations of Fourth Amendment protections against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's interpretation and application of state law regarding these matters. Therefore, they would have reversed the judgment from lower courts convicting McCorquodale.