In the case of George S. Bennett v. Arkansas in 1987, Bennett was convicted for theft by receiving and sentenced to life imprisonment as a habitual offender under Arkansas law. He appealed his conviction on the grounds that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to certain evidence introduced at trial and did not adequately cross-examine prosecution witnesses. The Supreme Court held that these claims were without merit, stating that there was no constitutional requirement for defense attorneys to challenge every piece of evidence or witness presented by the prosecution, especially if they believe it would be strategically disadvantageous or futile to do so. Furthermore, the court found no indication that Bennett's attorney's performance fell below an objective standard of reasonableness or resulted in prejudice against him.

The dissenting opinion in the case of George S. Bennett v. Arkansas argued that the majority's decision was inconsistent with previous rulings and interpretations of federal law regarding habeas corpus petitions. The dissenters believed that the petitioner, Bennett, had not been given a fair opportunity to present his claims in state court before seeking federal relief due to procedural complexities and limitations imposed by Arkansas law. They contended that these circumstances should have warranted an exception from exhaustion requirements under federal law, allowing for immediate review by a federal court instead of requiring him to first exhaust all possible remedies at the state level as mandated by statute 28 U.S.C §2254(b). Furthermore, they disagreed with the majority's view on what constituted "cause" for bypassing this requirement - arguing it should include situations where compliance would be futile or impossible due to factors beyond a petitioner’s control such as ineffective counsel or changes in legal standards.