In the case of Maryland v. James Kulbicki, the U.S. Supreme Court overturned a lower court's decision that had granted relief to James Kulbicki based on ineffective assistance of counsel during his 1995 trial for murder. The issue at hand was whether or not Kulbicki’s defense attorneys were deficient in their duties because they failed to challenge forensic evidence presented by the state - specifically Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA). In its unanimous per curiam opinion, the Supreme Court held that it was not unreasonable for Maryland's highest court to conclude that Kulbicki received effective legal representation under prevailing professional norms existing at the time of his trial and appeal process. The high court noted that CBLA criticism only became widely accepted years after his conviction and therefore could not have been anticipated by his lawyers during trial preparation.

In the dissenting opinion of Maryland v. Kulbicki, Justice Ginsburg argued that the majority's decision was flawed because it failed to consider how advancements in forensic science could have affected the outcome of James Kulbicki's trial. She contended that while Comparative Bullet Lead Analysis (CBLA) evidence may have been admissible at the time of his 1995 trial, subsequent scientific developments had discredited this method by revealing its potential for error and unreliability. Therefore, she believed that Kulbicki’s defense counsel should not be faulted for failing to challenge CBLA evidence based on information unavailable or unrecognized at that time. Instead, they should be judged according to prevailing professional norms which did not require them to predict future scientific discoveries or changes in law related thereto.