In the case of Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, Warden (1955), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Herman, who was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by a state court in Pennsylvania without legal representation or being informed about his right to counsel. The Supreme Court held that this violated his constitutional rights under the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause which guarantees fair treatment through normal judicial system. The court emphasized that an accused person should be given adequate time and opportunity to secure legal assistance before entering a plea, especially when facing serious charges like capital punishment.

In the dissenting opinion for Pennsylvania ex rel. Herman v. Claudy, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus was inappropriate because it failed to respect state court decisions and interfered with their jurisdiction over criminal matters. He contended that federal courts should only intervene in state proceedings when there is clear evidence of constitutional violations or gross miscarriages of justice, neither of which he believed were present in this case. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for not providing sufficient reasoning or legal precedent to justify their intervention into what he viewed as primarily a matter of state law and procedure.