In the case of Anthony Kane, Warden v. Joe Garcia Espitia in 2005, the United States Supreme Court ruled on a habeas corpus petition by Espitia who was convicted for attempted murder and assault with a firearm. The main issue at hand was whether or not Espitia's Sixth Amendment right to counsel had been violated when his attorney failed to object to jury instructions that were later deemed erroneous. The Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted relief based on ineffective assistance of counsel but this decision was overturned by the Supreme Court which held that there is no established law stating an attorney must challenge every potentially incorrect instruction given during trial proceedings. Therefore, it concluded that failing to object did not automatically constitute deficient performance under Strickland v Washington (1984), which sets forth standards for assessing claims of ineffective assistance of counsel.

In the dissenting opinion for Anthony Kane, Warden v. Joe Garcia Espitia, Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision failed to consider important aspects of Espitia's case. He contended that it was not enough to simply state that a defendant had been informed of his right to counsel; instead, there should be an examination into whether or not this right was effectively waived by the defendant. In this particular case, he believed there were significant doubts about whether Espitia fully understood and voluntarily gave up his rights when he decided to represent himself at trial. Furthermore, Justice Stevens criticized the majority for ignoring evidence suggesting that Espitia may have been mentally ill during his trial which could have affected his ability to make such decisions competently and knowingly.