In the case of Luckman v. Dunbar, Corrections Director, et al., 1962, petitioner Robert Luckman was convicted in a state court for armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment. He sought habeas corpus relief from his conviction on grounds that he had been denied effective assistance of counsel during his trial due to the fact that his attorney failed to object when evidence obtained through an allegedly illegal search was introduced at trial. The Supreme Court held that while it is true that failure by defense counsel to object may constitute ineffective assistance if it reflects incompetence rather than strategy or tactics, there must be a showing of prejudice resulting from such failure before relief can be granted. In this case, since no objection was made at trial and no motion for new trial filed alleging any error with respect thereto; hence there were no facts upon which federal courts could base a finding of denial of constitutional rights.

The dissenting opinion in the case of Luckman v. Dunbar, Corrections Director, et al., argued that the majority's decision to deny habeas corpus relief was incorrect. The dissent believed that there were significant issues with how Luckman's trial had been conducted and that these issues warranted a new trial or at least further review by a federal court. Specifically, they pointed out problems with how evidence had been handled during his original trial and concerns about whether he'd received effective assistance from his counsel. They also disagreed with the majority's interpretation of certain legal standards related to habeas corpus petitions and felt that their colleague’s approach was too restrictive given the circumstances of this particular case.