In the case of Woods v. Nierstheimer, Warden (1945), the US Supreme Court addressed a petition for habeas corpus by an Illinois prisoner who was convicted in state court and sentenced to 199 years imprisonment. The petitioner claimed that his constitutional rights were violated as he was not provided with counsel during his trial, despite being unable to afford one himself. He also alleged that he did not fully understand the charges against him due to lack of legal representation. However, the Supreme Court ruled against him stating that it had no jurisdiction over this matter because there was no federal question involved - meaning it didn't involve interpretation or application of U.S Constitution or Federal laws; rather it pertained solely to state law issues which are under purview of State courts only.

In the dissenting opinion for Woods v. Nierstheimer, Justice Frank Murphy argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated due to his lack of counsel during a critical stage in his trial process. He emphasized that the right to counsel is fundamental and essential for a fair trial as guaranteed by the Sixth Amendment. The absence of legal representation when deciding whether or not to plead guilty can lead to an uninformed decision with severe consequences, thus undermining justice. Furthermore, he disagreed with majority’s view on federal habeas corpus jurisdiction over state court convictions and believed it should be used more broadly as a safeguard against unconstitutional imprisonment from state courts' decisions.