In the case of Crouse, Warden v. Wood in 1969, the U.S Supreme Court addressed a habeas corpus petition from an inmate who claimed that his constitutional rights were violated during his trial for murder. The petitioner argued that he was denied effective assistance of counsel because his lawyer failed to object to certain evidence and did not adequately cross-examine witnesses. He also contended that there was insufficient evidence to support his conviction and sentence. However, the court rejected these arguments on appeal. The Supreme Court held that even if some errors occurred at trial or in representation by counsel, they did not rise to the level of a constitutional violation warranting reversal of conviction or sentence under federal law governing habeas corpus petitions. The court emphasized its deference towards state courts' findings unless clear error is shown. Furthermore, it found no merit in petitioner's claim about insufficiency of evidence as it viewed this issue as one primarily for jury determination rather than judicial review unless no reasonable juror could have reached such verdict based on presented evidences.

In the dissenting opinion for Crouse, Warden v. Wood, the justice argued that there was no constitutional violation in denying a prisoner's request to be present at his habeas corpus hearing. The justice believed that due process does not always require physical presence and can sometimes be satisfied through other means such as written submissions or counsel representation. They also pointed out that many courts have held hearings without prisoners being physically present when it is impractical or unnecessary for them to attend. Furthermore, they noted that allowing every prisoner who requests it to attend their habeas corpus hearing could create significant logistical challenges and security risks for prisons and courts alike.