In the case of Williams v. New York, 1948, the U.S. Supreme Court upheld a judge's right to consider information not presented in court when determining a sentence for a convicted criminal. The defendant, Augustus Williams was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by electrocution based on additional evidence that wasn't introduced during his trial but was considered by the judge during sentencing. This included reports from probation officers and other details about his character and past behavior which suggested he had committed 30 burglaries previously although he hadn't been formally charged or convicted for them. On appeal, Williams argued this violated his constitutional rights as it denied him an opportunity to confront witnesses against him or challenge their testimony under cross-examination - key aspects of due process according to Sixth Amendment guarantees in criminal trials. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with William’s argument stating that once guilt has been established beyond reasonable doubt using fair procedures; judges can use pre-sentence investigations and other sources while deciding punishment without violating any constitutional rights.

In the dissenting opinion for Williams v. New York, Justice Frankfurter argued that due process requires a defendant to be able to confront and cross-examine witnesses who provide information used in sentencing decisions. He contended that the majority's decision allowed judges too much discretion in determining sentences based on unverified information from pre-sentence reports or other sources not presented at trial. This, he believed, violated fundamental principles of fairness and justice by denying defendants an opportunity to challenge potentially inaccurate or misleading evidence influencing their sentence. Furthermore, he expressed concern about potential abuses of power if judges were permitted to rely on such unchecked sources of information when deciding punishments.