In the case of Morris et al. v. Schoonfield, Warden, et al., 1969, the United States Supreme Court examined whether a Maryland statute that allowed for jury trials only in criminal cases where the potential sentence was over 18 months violated due process and equal protection rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The petitioners were convicted of petty offenses and sentenced to less than 18 months without being offered a trial by jury because their sentences did not meet Maryland's threshold requirement for such trials. They argued that this denial constituted discrimination against those charged with lesser crimes. The Supreme Court held that there was no constitutional right to a jury trial for petty offenses and upheld Maryland’s law as valid under both Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses of Fourteenth Amendment. The court reasoned that states have broad discretion in determining when to offer jury trials based on practical considerations like judicial efficiency.

In the dissenting opinion for Morris et al. v. Schoonfield, Warden, et al., Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to overturn Maryland's jury selection system on grounds of racial discrimination. He argued that there was insufficient evidence to prove systematic exclusion of African Americans from juries in Baltimore City and thus no violation of equal protection clause under Fourteenth Amendment had occurred. The statistical data presented by petitioners did not conclusively demonstrate a pattern of racial bias or intent to discriminate against black jurors according to him. Furthermore, he contended that even if disparities existed between population ratios and jury representation, it could be due to factors other than race such as age restrictions or occupational exemptions which were legitimate reasons for excluding certain individuals from jury service.