In Starr v. United States, the Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted of murder in Indian Territory and sentenced to death by hanging. The defendant appealed his conviction arguing that he had not been given due process because he was tried under laws applicable to non-Indians rather than those specific to Native Americans. He also claimed that the jury selection process violated his rights as it excluded individuals opposed to capital punishment. However, the Supreme Court upheld his conviction stating that Congress has plenary power over Indian affairs and can apply federal law within territories where Indians reside if it chooses so. Furthermore, they found no constitutional violation in excluding potential jurors with conscientious objections against capital punishment from serving on juries in cases where such penalty might be imposed.

In the dissenting opinion for Starr v. United States, Justice Brewer argued that the majority's decision was incorrect because it failed to consider the defendant's right to a fair trial. He believed that by allowing jurors who had preconceived notions about the case or bias against one party to serve on a jury, they were compromising this fundamental right. According to him, even if these biases did not directly influence their final verdict, their mere presence could subtly sway other jurors and create an unfair environment for deliberation. Therefore, he contended that any juror with potential bias should be disqualified from serving in order to protect defendants' rights and maintain public confidence in judicial proceedings.