In Wade v. Yeager, Warden (1967), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving petitioner James R. Wade who was convicted of first-degree murder in New Jersey state court and sentenced to life imprisonment. After exhausting his appeals at the state level, he filed a habeas corpus petition in federal district court arguing that his constitutional rights were violated because he did not have access to grand jury testimony during his trial which could have been used for impeachment purposes against key prosecution witnesses. The District Court denied relief but the Third Circuit reversed this decision stating that due process required disclosure of such evidence when it might be useful for defense purposes. The State appealed this decision leading to its review by the Supreme Court. The Supreme Court held that while defendants are entitled under due process clause of Fourteenth Amendment to obtain from prosecutors any favorable evidence material either to guilt or punishment, there is no general constitutional right requiring prosecutors disclose all information they possess before trial unless failure do so would deny defendant fair trial as guaranteed by Constitution.

In the dissenting opinion for Wade v. Yeager, Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to grant a writ of habeas corpus to petitioner Wade based on his claim that he was denied a fair trial due to pretrial publicity. He argued that there was no evidence presented at trial or in subsequent proceedings which demonstrated actual prejudice against Wade as a result of this publicity. Furthermore, he contended that it is not enough for an accused person merely to show potential bias from pretrial publicity; they must also demonstrate actual harm or unfairness resulting from such exposure. The justice believed that by granting relief without requiring proof of real prejudice, the court had set an unworkable standard and undermined state courts' authority over their own criminal procedures.