In the case of In re Graham, the petitioner was a man who had been convicted and sentenced to death for murder in California. He sought habeas corpus relief from the U.S. Supreme Court, arguing that his conviction was unconstitutional because he had not been provided with effective assistance of counsel during his trial. The court denied his petition, ruling that it did not have jurisdiction to hear such claims directly from state prisoners under federal law at that time. Instead, they stated these issues should be first addressed by lower federal courts before reaching them on appeal if necessary.

The dissenting opinion in the case of In re Graham, 1890, argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that the petitioner had been unlawfully detained and deserved a new trial. They contended that there were significant procedural errors during his original trial which violated his constitutional rights. These included issues with jury selection and instructions given by the judge. Furthermore, they disagreed with how evidence was handled and presented in court - arguing it unfairly influenced the outcome of proceedings against him. Therefore, they felt he should be granted habeas corpus relief so these matters could be properly addressed in a retrial.