In the case of Whitmore, Individually and as Next Friend of Simmons v. Arkansas et al., 1989, petitioner Jon B. Whitmore sought to challenge the competency of Ronald Gene Simmons to waive his right to appeal a death sentence in Arkansas. Whitmore argued that he had standing under "next friend" doctrine which allows someone else to act on behalf of another who is unable to do so themselves due to disability or lack thereof legal access. The Supreme Court ruled against him stating that next friends must provide an adequate explanation such as inaccessibility, mental incompetence or other disability why the real party in interest cannot appear on his own behalf for them have standing before court; mere voluntary choice not pursue legal remedies isn't enough reason grant this status. Furthermore, it was held that there wasn't sufficient evidence demonstrate Simmons' incompetency make decisions about his own defense thus denying Whitmore's claim.

In the dissenting opinion for Whitmore v. Arkansas, Justice Brennan argued that Jon Simmons had a constitutional right to challenge his death sentence even if he personally wished to waive all appeals and be executed. He disagreed with the majority's view that petitioner Whitmore lacked standing as "next friend" of Simmons because there was no evidence of mental incompetence or coercion affecting Simmons' decision. Brennan believed this standard was too narrow and failed to consider other factors which might impair a defendant's ability to make rational decisions, such as emotional instability or ignorance about legal rights and procedures. Furthermore, he contended that allowing defendants like Simmons to voluntarily hasten their own executions undermined public confidence in the fairness and integrity of the criminal justice system by permitting potentially erroneous death sentences to go unreviewed.