In the case of Lathan v. New York (1963), the U.S Supreme Court addressed an appeal from a man convicted for possession and sale of narcotics in New York. The appellant, Lathan, argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he was not provided with counsel during police interrogation after arrest, which led to self-incriminating statements used against him at trial. He also claimed that evidence obtained through an unlawful search and seizure was admitted into court proceedings. However, the Supreme Court dismissed these arguments on procedural grounds without addressing their merits directly. The court held that since Lathan had failed to raise these issues at his state trial or on direct review within the state system before bringing them up in federal habeas corpus proceedings, they could not be considered by federal courts under existing law unless it appeared that there were exceptional circumstances justifying such consideration - something which did not apply in this case. This decision underscored how important it is for defendants to assert all potential defenses and objections as early as possible in legal proceedings so they can be properly reviewed and adjudicated upon.

In the dissenting opinion for Lathan v. New York, the justice argued that there was no constitutional violation in this case because the defendant had been given a fair trial with due process of law. The justice believed that it was not within their jurisdiction to review state court decisions unless there were clear violations of federal rights involved. They also pointed out that even if they disagreed with how the evidence had been interpreted or evaluated by lower courts, it did not necessarily mean those courts had acted unconstitutionally. Therefore, they felt it was inappropriate and overreaching for them to intervene in this particular case.