In Whelchel v. McDonald, Warden (1950), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled on a case involving an individual who was convicted of murder and sentenced to death in Georgia state court. The petitioner, Whelchel, argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not allowed to consult with counsel during a recess in his trial when the jury asked for further instructions from the judge regarding their verdict options. He also claimed that he had been denied due process as there had been no inquiry into his sanity at the time of offense or during trial despite evidence suggesting possible insanity. The Supreme Court held that while it is generally required for defendants to have access to counsel at all critical stages of proceedings against them, this requirement does not extend indefinitely throughout every moment of a trial; thus denying consultation with counsel during brief recess did not violate Sixth Amendment right to assistance of counsel. Regarding second claim about sanity inquiry, court found no violation since under Georgia law it's defendant's responsibility -not courts'-  to raise issue about mental competency before or during trial unless there’s reason so obvious that court itself should notice.

In the dissenting opinion for Whelchel v. McDonald, Justice Frankfurter argued that the majority's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not Whelchel had been denied his constitutional right to counsel during his trial in Georgia state court. He pointed out that while there may have been no explicit denial of this right, the circumstances surrounding his trial suggested an implicit denial. Specifically, he noted that Whelchel was illiterate and mentally impaired, making it unlikely he could understand complex legal proceedings without assistance from a lawyer. Furthermore, he highlighted how quickly the trial proceeded - less than 48 hours after arrest - suggesting inadequate time for preparation even if counsel were available. Finally, Justice Frankfurter criticized the majority's reliance on procedural technicalities rather than addressing these substantive issues directly.