The U.S. Supreme Court case Delma Banks, Jr. v. Doug Dretke, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice in 2003 revolved around the issue of ineffective counsel and prosecutorial misconduct during a capital murder trial that resulted in a death sentence for Delma Banks Jr., who was convicted for the 1980 murder of Richard Whitehead in Texas. The defense argued that prosecutors withheld crucial evidence from the defense team and presented false testimony to secure conviction while his attorneys failed to adequately represent him at sentencing by not investigating or presenting mitigating evidence about his background which could have potentially spared him from death penalty. The Supreme Court ruled 7-2 in favor of Banks stating that both prosecution's suppression of key witness' prior deals with government and failure on part of defense attorney constituted constitutional violations sufficient enough to undermine confidence in outcome thereby warranting federal habeas relief.

In the dissenting opinion for Delma Banks, Jr. v. Doug Dretke, Justice Clarence Thomas argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was based on a misinterpretation of federal law and an overreach of judicial authority. He contended that there were no constitutional violations in Banks' trial and thus, no grounds for granting him relief from his death sentence. According to Justice Thomas, the prosecution did not withhold any material evidence nor did it present false testimony during Banks' trial as claimed by the defense team; therefore, he believed that all relevant information was disclosed appropriately at trial. Furthermore, he asserted that even if there had been prosecutorial misconduct or ineffective assistance of counsel (which he denied), these issues should have been addressed through state court proceedings rather than federal intervention.