In the case of Ughbanks v. Armstrong, Warden of the Michigan State Prison (1907), the petitioner, Ughbanks, a prisoner in Michigan state prison sought to challenge his conviction for murder on grounds that he was denied due process and equal protection under law as guaranteed by Fourteenth Amendment. He claimed that his confession was obtained through coercion and torture while in police custody. The Supreme Court dismissed these claims stating that they lacked merit since there were no federal questions involved in this case; it was purely a matter of state law enforcement procedure which had been duly followed according to existing laws at the time. Therefore, any alleged violation would have to be addressed within the framework of Michigan's legal system rather than being brought before Federal courts or Supreme Court.

The dissenting opinion in the UGHBANKS v. ARMSTRONG case argued that the petitioner, who was convicted of murder and sentenced to life imprisonment, should have been granted a writ of habeas corpus due to his claim that he did not receive a fair trial. The justice believed there were significant issues with how evidence was presented during the original trial which could have influenced its outcome. Specifically, they pointed out that certain pieces of evidence were admitted without proper examination or verification for their relevance or authenticity. They also expressed concern over potential bias from jury members who may have formed opinions about the defendant's guilt prior to hearing all evidence and arguments in court. The dissenting justice felt these factors violated the defendant's constitutional right to a fair trial and thus warranted reconsideration by higher courts.