In Woolsey v. Best, Warden (1936), the United States Supreme Court considered whether a state court's decision to deny a writ of habeas corpus was valid under federal law. The petitioner, Woolsey, had been convicted for burglary in an Oklahoma state court and sentenced to 15 years imprisonment. He argued that his conviction violated the Fourteenth Amendment because he was denied counsel during his trial despite requesting one due to financial inability. However, both the District Court and Circuit Court of Appeals rejected this argument on grounds that he did not sufficiently demonstrate such need at trial. The Supreme Court reversed these decisions by ruling in favor of Woolsey based on its interpretation of Powell v Alabama (1932). In Powell case it held that defendants facing serious criminal charges are entitled to legal representation even if they cannot afford it themselves; failure by courts to ensure this right constitutes violation of Due Process clause under Fourteenth Amendment. This landmark decision significantly expanded constitutional protections for indigent defendants in state courts across America by affirming their right to appointed counsel when charged with serious offenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Woolsey v. Best, Warden, it was argued that the majority's decision to overturn Woolsey's conviction based on a lack of evidence supporting his sanity at the time of committing murder was flawed. The dissenting justices believed that there had been sufficient evidence presented during trial to establish reasonable doubt about Woolsey's mental state when he committed the crime. They contended that this should have led to an acquittal rather than a guilty verdict and death sentence by jury. Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority’s view that only expert testimony could provide definitive proof of insanity; instead arguing that layman observations and testimonies regarding abnormal behavior can also be considered valid indicators of mental instability or illness in certain cases.