In the 1967 case Wheat v. Washington, the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Washington state, upholding a conviction against defendant Robert Wheat for assault with intent to commit rape. The court found that there was no violation of due process rights when police officers questioned him without counsel present after he had been indicted and released on bail. The court held that his statements were voluntary and not coerced, despite being made while under indictment but before trial or appointment of counsel. This decision affirmed that an accused person's right to counsel does not extend to all pretrial proceedings once formal judicial action has begun unless they are subjected to custodial interrogation or their freedom is significantly restrained.

In the dissenting opinion for Wheat v. Washington, the justice argued that there was a lack of sufficient evidence to support the majority's conclusion that Wheat was competent at the time he waived his right to counsel. The dissent pointed out inconsistencies in expert testimonies regarding Wheat's mental state and emphasized that these discrepancies should have been resolved before determining whether or not he could competently waive his rights. Furthermore, it was stressed that even if Wheat had moments of lucidity during which he could understand proceedings, this did not necessarily mean he possessed an ongoing capacity to make informed decisions about his defense strategy throughout trial duration. Therefore, according to this view, it would be inappropriate and unjustifiable under due process principles to allow such a waiver based on sporadic episodes of competence amidst overall incompetence.