In the 1997 case Garrit Bates v. United States, the Supreme Court addressed whether a criminal defendant's right to counsel was violated when his attorney failed to object to an incorrect jury instruction regarding intent in a drug trafficking charge. The court ruled that even though Bates' lawyer did not challenge this error during trial, it did not necessarily mean he had provided ineffective assistance of counsel. The court noted that lawyers have broad latitude in making tactical decisions and sometimes may choose not to pursue certain objections for strategic reasons. Therefore, simply failing to object does not automatically constitute deficient performance under the Sixth Amendment right to effective legal representation.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Garrit Bates v. United States argued that the majority's interpretation of the law was too broad and failed to consider important nuances. The dissenters believed that Bates' actions did not constitute "use" under federal law, which they interpreted as requiring more than mere possession or storage of a firearm. They contended that for someone to be charged with "using" a weapon, there must be evidence showing active employment or deployment of it during an illegal activity - something absent in this case where Bates merely stored firearms at his drug-dealing premises but never actively used them in any crime. Furthermore, they criticized the majority's reliance on dictionary definitions instead of considering legislative intent and common sense understanding when interpreting legal terms like 'use'. This overly expansive interpretation could potentially criminalize innocent behavior and lead to disproportionate sentences for minor offenses, according to their view.