In the case of Griffith v. Kentucky, 1986, the US Supreme Court ruled that new constitutional rules for criminal procedure should be applied retroactively to all cases pending on direct review or not yet final. The decision was based on two separate cases in which black defendants were convicted by juries from which black jurors had been excluded due to their race. While these appeals were pending, a ruling in another case (Batson v. Kentucky) declared such racial exclusion unconstitutional but did not specify whether this rule would apply retroactively to ongoing cases like Griffith's and Palmer's (the other defendant). In its unanimous decision, the court held that failure to apply new procedures retrospectively would violate basic norms of constitutional adjudication and undermine public perception of law as "an understandable system with enforceable rules," thus establishing an important precedent for future changes in legal interpretation.

In the dissenting opinion for Griffith v. Kentucky, Justice Powell argued that the new rule established by the majority should not be applied retroactively to cases on direct review. He contended that such a move would undermine both public respect for and compliance with court decisions, as well as disrupt judicial administration due to its potential impact on countless other convictions. Moreover, he believed it was unfair to apply this new rule retrospectively because defendants had no reason or opportunity to anticipate changes in law when they made their original trial strategy decisions. Therefore, according to Justice Powell's perspective, applying this change retroactively could lead to unjust outcomes and create unnecessary burdens on courts.