In the case of Roger Keith Coleman v. Charles E. Thompson, Warden in 1990, the U.S Supreme Court was asked to consider whether a death row inmate could be executed if new evidence emerged that might prove his innocence but had not been reviewed by a court due to procedural default rules. Coleman had been convicted for rape and murder in Virginia and sentenced to death; however, he maintained his innocence throughout the trial process and subsequent appeals. After exhausting all avenues of appeal within the state system, new evidence came forward which may have proven his innocence but was barred from consideration due to procedural rules regarding timeliness of submissions (procedural default). The Supreme Court ruled against Coleman stating that federal courts were not required under habeas corpus law or constitutionally mandated to hear claims defaulted in state court because they were filed late - even when those claims involved potential proof of actual innocence.

In the dissenting opinion for Roger Keith Coleman v. Charles E. Thompson, Warden, Justice Brennan argued that the majority's decision to deny Coleman habeas corpus relief was a grave mistake and an affront to justice. He contended that procedural default rules should not be used as a means of denying individuals their constitutional rights or preventing them from presenting compelling claims of innocence in capital cases. Brennan criticized the majority for prioritizing finality over fairness and accuracy in criminal proceedings, stating that such an approach undermines public confidence in the judicial system and increases risk of wrongful executions. He also expressed concern about how this ruling could disproportionately affect indigent defendants who often lack adequate legal representation during trial and post-conviction proceedings.