In the 1982 case Jones, Superintendent, Great Meadow Correctional Facility, et al. v. Barnes, the U.S Supreme Court ruled that a defense attorney does not have to present every nonfrivolous argument suggested by their client on appeal if they believe it is in the best interest of their client not to do so. The court held that an indigent defendant has no constitutional right to compel appointed counsel to press nonfrivolous points requested by the client when counsel decides as a matter of professional judgment that doing so would be detrimental. This decision was based on considerations such as legal strategy and avoiding dilution of stronger arguments with weaker ones. Thus, while defendants have a constitutional right for effective representation during appeals process under Sixth Amendment's guarantee of assistance of counsel for criminal defendants; this does not mean presenting all possible claims but rather those likely to persuade appellate courts.

In the dissenting opinion for Jones v. Barnes, Justice Brennan argued that an appointed counsel has a constitutional obligation to support his client's appeal on any grounds strongly urged by the defendant, even if he personally believes those arguments are frivolous. He disagreed with the majority view that such a requirement would undermine an attorney’s professional judgment and independence. Instead, Brennan contended that this approach respects both the autonomy of defendants and their right to effective representation under the Sixth Amendment. He also expressed concern about potential conflicts of interest between attorneys who might prioritize their reputations over clients' wishes or best interests.