In the case of Sharpe v. Buchanan, Warden in 1942, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a petition for habeas corpus by an inmate who was serving a life sentence for murder in Virginia. The petitioner argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed to consult with counsel during his trial and did not have adequate time to prepare his defense. However, the court found no merit in these claims as it appeared from the record that he had been given ample opportunity to secure counsel and sufficient time for preparation of his defense before trial commenced. Furthermore, there was no evidence showing any denial or infringement upon his right to due process under law. Therefore, the judgment of lower courts denying him relief through writs of habeas corpus were affirmed by Supreme Court.

In the dissenting opinion for Sharpe v. Buchanan, it was argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated due to an unfair trial process. The dissenting justices believed that Sharpe had not been given a fair opportunity to present his defense and challenge the evidence against him, particularly concerning his mental competency at the time of committing alleged crimes. They also took issue with how quickly he was tried after being indicted, arguing this did not allow adequate time for preparation of a proper defense strategy. Furthermore, they disagreed with how certain pieces of evidence were handled during trial proceedings and felt there may have been bias in their presentation or interpretation by jury members. In essence, these justices held that procedural errors and potential biases could have significantly impacted Sharpe's conviction outcome; thus warranting reconsideration under principles of justice and fairness enshrined in U.S constitution.