In the case of Jeffrey A. Beard, Secretary, Pennsylvania Department of Corrections, et al. v. Joseph J. Kindler in 2009, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a state procedural rule is not automatically "inadequate" to prevent federal habeas corpus review just because it has exceptions or is discretionary rather than mandatory in nature. The case involved Joseph J.Kindler who was convicted for murder and sentenced to death by a Pennsylvania court but escaped prison twice while his appeals were pending and fled to Canada where he was later recaptured and extradited back to the United States after waiving his right against extradition proceedings during negotiations with Canadian authorities . His post-conviction relief petitions were dismissed due to fugitive forfeiture rule which disallows fugitives from benefiting from their escape by dismissing any pending motions upon escape.The Third Circuit Court held this rule as inadequate thus allowing Kindler's petition for habeas corpus at Federal level but this decision was reversed by Supreme Court stating that discretion does not render a state procedural bar inadequate.

In the dissenting opinion for Beard v. Kindler, Justice John Paul Stevens argued that Pennsylvania's procedural rule was not consistently or regularly applied and therefore should not be considered an "adequate" state ground barring federal review of a habeas petition. He pointed out that in many cases, fugitives who had fled were still allowed to appeal upon their return. Thus, he believed it was wrong to deny Kindler his right to appeal just because he had escaped custody before his post-verdict motions were heard by the court. In essence, Justice Stevens felt that there wasn't enough consistency in how Pennsylvania handled such situations for it to serve as a basis for denying federal review.