In the case of Ohio v. Ediberto Huertas, 1990, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a defendant's right to counsel had been violated during police questioning. The defendant, Ediberto Huertas, argued that his Sixth Amendment rights were infringed upon when he was questioned by police without his attorney present after being indicted on drug charges. However, the court ruled against him stating that there is no constitutional requirement for an accused person’s lawyer to be present at all times once formal proceedings have begun unless specifically requested by the accused or if it involves post-indictment lineups or interrogations about charged offenses. Therefore, in this particular case where Mr.Huertas voluntarily spoke with investigators and did not request his attorney's presence during questioning about uncharged crimes related but distinct from those he had been indicted for earlier; it was held that there wasn't any violation of his Sixth Amendment rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Ohio v. Huertas argued that the majority's decision to uphold Ediberto Huertas' conviction, despite a potentially biased jury member, undermined the fundamental right to an impartial jury trial. The dissenting justices believed that Mr. Huertas was denied his Sixth Amendment rights when one juror admitted she might be influenced by her husband's negative experiences with Hispanic people like Mr. Huertas. They contended that this admission should have been enough for disqualification and failure to do so compromised the fairness of the trial process itself, regardless of whether actual bias could be proven or not.