In the 1992 case Gary Graham v. James A. Collins, Director, Texas Department of Criminal Justice, Institutional Division, the U.S Supreme Court examined whether a death row inmate had received effective counsel during his trial and if new evidence could be introduced in federal habeas corpus proceedings. Gary Graham was convicted for a 1981 murder based on one eyewitness's testimony without any corroborating physical evidence or additional witnesses. His defense counsel did not call upon other potential witnesses who might have provided an alibi or contradicted the prosecution's witness during his trial. In later appeals for post-conviction relief at state and federal levels, he sought to introduce this new evidence but was denied due to procedural rules that limit consideration only to matters raised at trial or direct appeal unless there is cause shown why they were not presented earlier and actual prejudice resulted from their omission. The Supreme Court upheld these denials by lower courts with a majority opinion stating that ineffective assistance of counsel claims must show both deficient performance by counsel and resulting prejudice affecting outcome of proceedings under Strickland v Washington standard which Graham failed to meet; also newly discovered evidence can't be considered in federal habeas review unless it meets stringent requirements set out in Townsend v Sain which weren’t met either.

In the dissenting opinion for Gary Graham v. James A. Collins, Justice Scalia argued that federal courts should not have jurisdiction over state court decisions unless there is a clear violation of constitutional rights. He contended that Graham's claim of ineffective counsel did not meet this standard because it was based on his lawyer's failure to present certain evidence at trial, which he believed fell under the category of tactical decision-making rather than incompetence or negligence. Furthermore, Scalia asserted that even if such evidence had been presented and resulted in a different outcome at trial, it would still not constitute a violation of due process since the right to effective counsel does not guarantee an error-free defense but merely one within professional standards. Finally, he criticized the majority for setting a dangerous precedent by allowing federal courts to second-guess state court judgments without sufficient cause.