In the case of Lane, Warden v. Brown (1962), the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of petitioner Robert E. Brown who was convicted for armed robbery and sentenced to death by an Indiana court. The issue at hand was whether or not a state-appointed counsel's failure to appeal his client's conviction violated due process rights under the Fourteenth Amendment. The appointed attorney had withdrawn from the case without notifying Brown or seeking permission from the court, leaving him with no legal representation during a crucial period when he could have appealed his sentence but did not know how to do so himself. In its decision, the Supreme Court held that this action constituted a violation of due process because it denied Brown access to full legal proceedings available under law - including filing an appeal against his conviction and sentence.

In the dissenting opinion for Lane, Warden v. Brown (1962), Justice Harlan disagreed with the majority's decision to reverse and remand the case back to a lower court. He argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case as claimed by Brown because he had been given ample opportunity to present his defense during trial proceedings. Furthermore, Justice Harlan emphasized that it is not within the Supreme Court’s jurisdiction or duty to reevaluate evidence presented at trial or question a jury’s verdict based on its own interpretation of facts; such actions would undermine both state courts’ authority and defendants' rights under due process law. Therefore, he believed that federal habeas corpus relief should only be granted when there is clear proof of gross injustice which did not exist in this particular case according to him.