In Smith v. Pennsylvania, 1963, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of a defendant who had been convicted for burglary and larceny by a state court without being provided with counsel. The case was based on the Sixth Amendment to the United States Constitution which guarantees every citizen accused of a crime has right to legal representation. In this particular case, Mr. Smith had not been offered an attorney nor could he afford one himself due to his financial situation at that time. He appealed his conviction arguing that it violated his constitutional rights under both the Sixth and Fourteenth Amendments - specifically their provisions regarding equal protection and due process of law respectively. The Supreme Court agreed with him unanimously (9-0) stating that failure to provide legal counsel for defendants unable to afford it themselves is indeed unconstitutional as per Gideon v Wainwright precedent set earlier in 1963.

In the dissenting opinion for Smith v. Pennsylvania, the justice argued that there was no violation of due process in this case. The defendant had been convicted by a jury and his conviction upheld by state courts, which found sufficient evidence to support it. The Supreme Court's reversal of these decisions was seen as an overreach into matters properly left to state courts and juries. Furthermore, the dissenting justice believed that even if some error occurred during trial proceedings, they were harmless beyond reasonable doubt given the weight of other incriminating evidence against Smith. Therefore, he disagreed with majority's decision to overturn Smith’s conviction on grounds of federal constitutional law violations.