In the case of Picksimer v. Wainwright, 1963, the petitioner was a Florida state prisoner who sought federal habeas corpus relief on grounds that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial for murder in a Florida court. He claimed he had been denied due process because of an alleged coerced confession and ineffective assistance from counsel. The District Court dismissed the petition without hearing evidence or appointing counsel to represent Picksimer, based on its review of records from previous proceedings in state courts and another Federal District Court. The Supreme Court held that dismissal was improper as it did not allow for adequate consideration of whether there might be circumstances justifying relitigation of issues previously determined against him by other tribunals. It emphasized that while repetitive applications may abuse habeas corpus procedures, each application must still be examined to determine if it states new facts warranting federal intervention.

In the dissenting opinion for Picksimer v. Wainwright, Justice Douglas argued that the petitioner should have been granted a hearing to determine whether he was mentally competent at the time of his trial. He stated that it is unconstitutional to try and convict someone who is insane or incompetent, citing several previous cases as precedent. Furthermore, he pointed out inconsistencies in how mental competency was evaluated in this case compared to others; while some defendants were given hearings based on less compelling evidence of insanity, Picksimer was denied one despite substantial proof of his incompetency. He also criticized Florida's legal system for its lackadaisical approach towards ensuring defendants' rights are protected when questions about their sanity arise.