In the case of Boles, Warden v. Stevenson in 1964, the U.S Supreme Court ruled on a habeas corpus petition filed by an inmate who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial. The petitioner argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his attorney failed to object to certain evidence and did not adequately cross-examine witnesses. He also alleged that there was insufficient evidence for conviction and that he had been subjected to double jeopardy due to being tried twice for the same offense after a mistrial was declared in the first trial. The Supreme Court held that these claims could be considered under federal habeas corpus law even though they had not been raised at trial or on direct appeal. This decision expanded defendants' ability to challenge their convictions based on violations of their constitutional rights, even if those issues were not addressed at trial or during initial appeals.

In the case of Boles, Warden v. Stevenson, Justice Harlan presented a dissenting opinion. He argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief was incorrect because it failed to consider whether or not there had been a fair determination of federal constitutional issues by state courts. According to him, this failure undermined the principles of comity and respect for state court judgments which are fundamental in our federal system. Furthermore, he contended that even if one were to accept the majority’s view that no adequate state corrective process existed at the time when respondent sought habeas corpus relief from Federal District Court, such circumstances did not justify ignoring subsequent developments in West Virginia law providing an effective procedure for raising his claims before those courts.