The case of Williams v. New York involved a murder trial where the defendant was found guilty of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by the trial judge, despite the jury's recommendation of life imprisonment. The judge considered additional information about the defendant's criminal record and mental health, as required by § 482 of New York Criminal Code. The defendant argued that the sentence was based on information from witnesses he had not been able to confront or cross-examine. The Court of Appeals of New York affirmed the conviction and sentence, and the case is now on appeal to the Supreme Court. The defendant is challenging the constitutionality of New York's policy allowing judges to consider information obtained outside the courtroom for sentencing purposes, arguing that it conflicts with the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. The defendant's lawyers appealed for a life sentence, but the judge sentenced him to death based on information about his background that was not presented to the jury. Rule 32 of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure allows federal judges to consider reports from probation officers containing information about the defendant for sentencing purposes.

During sentencing, judges need relevant information about the defendant's life and characteristics to determine the appropriate punishment within legal limits. Modern concepts of individualized punishment make it necessary for judges to have access to this information, even if it would not be admissible during a trial. Probation reports provide valuable information for judges to sentence based on the best available information. Restricting this information would undermine modern penological procedural policies. The due process clause should not be interpreted as requiring courts to abandon their traditional practice of seeking information from out-of-court sources to guide their judgment towards a fair sentence. The clause does not render a sentence void simply because a judge obtains additional out-of-court information to assist in the exercise of this power.

The defendant was found guilty and sentenced by the lower court, and the case was later appealed to the highest court in the state. The court upheld the sentence and ruled that due process of law was not violated for the defendant. However, Justice Murphy dissented, arguing that the judge relied on a probation report that contained inadmissible evidence, violating due process. The use of such a report against the unanimous recommendation of a jury in a capital case violates due process.