In the case of Shockey v. Illinois, 1963, the petitioner was convicted for burglary and larceny in an Illinois state court. The Supreme Court of Illinois affirmed this conviction without opinion. However, Shockey appealed to the U.S Supreme Court on grounds that his constitutional rights were violated as he was not provided with counsel during police interrogation after arrest and before arraignment; a period where he made self-incriminating statements which were used against him at trial. He argued that these circumstances contravened his Sixth Amendment right to legal representation and Fifth Amendment protection against self-incrimination under federal law. The U.S Supreme Court dismissed Shockey's appeal "for want of substantial federal question". This meant they did not find any significant issues relating to interpretation or application of federal laws or constitution in this case warranting their review.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Shockey v. Illinois argued that the majority's decision to uphold Shockey's conviction was a violation of his constitutional rights, specifically his right against self-incrimination under the Fifth Amendment. The dissenting justices believed that Shockey had been coerced into confessing to a crime he did not commit due to police pressure and intimidation tactics. They also took issue with how evidence was obtained and used against him during trial, arguing it violated his Fourth Amendment rights protecting against unreasonable searches and seizures. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential violations of due process as guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment because they felt that Shockey hadn't received a fair trial given these circumstances.