In the 1963 case of Newsome v. North Carolina, the United States Supreme Court reviewed a decision made by the Supreme Court of North Carolina. The petitioner, Newsome, was convicted for armed robbery and sentenced to death in a state court. He appealed his conviction on grounds that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment due to his lawyer's lack of preparation time before trial. However, both state courts rejected this claim stating that there was no constitutional requirement specifying how much time an attorney should have for preparing defense. Upon reaching U.S Supreme Court, it dismissed Newsome’s appeal "for want of a substantial federal question." This meant that they did not find any significant issues relating to federal law or constitution in this case which would warrant their review or intervention.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Newsome v. North Carolina argued that the majority's decision to uphold Newsome's conviction was flawed due to a lack of consideration for potential racial bias in jury selection. The dissent pointed out that although there were African Americans eligible for jury duty, none had been selected for service on any juries within the county over an extended period of time. This pattern suggested systematic exclusion based on race, which violated equal protection under law as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. Furthermore, it was noted that this issue should have been addressed during trial and not dismissed as irrelevant or coincidental by lower courts and ultimately by Supreme Court itself. Therefore, according to this viewpoint, Mr.Newsome’s right to a fair trial with an impartial jury was compromised and his conviction should be overturned.