In the case of Moore v. Arizona (1973), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner, Robert Allen Moore, who was convicted for robbery and sentenced to death by an Arizona court. The Supreme Court overturned this conviction on grounds that it violated his Sixth Amendment right to a fair trial due to pretrial publicity. Prior to his trial, local media had extensively covered Moore's criminal history which potentially influenced public opinion and prejudiced potential jurors against him before they heard any evidence at trial. This ruling emphasized the importance of ensuring defendants receive a fair and impartial jury free from outside influences or bias.

In the dissenting opinion for Moore v. Arizona, the justice argued that there was no violation of due process in this case. The defendant had been given a fair trial and his conviction was based on substantial evidence. He also pointed out that the defendant's claim of ineffective assistance of counsel did not meet the standard set by previous Supreme Court decisions, which required a showing that counsel's performance was so inadequate as to deny him a fair trial. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s view about jury instructions regarding intent; according to him, they were clear and accurate statements of law which adequately guided jury deliberations. Therefore, he believed there were no grounds for overturning the conviction or granting a new trial.