In the case of Patrick Glebe, Superintendent, Stafford Creek Corrections Center v. Joshua James Frost (2014), the U.S. Supreme Court ruled in favor of Glebe. The issue at hand was whether a state court's decision that a defendant is not entitled to relief on a claim because his attorney provided constitutionally effective assistance amounts to an adjudication "on the merits" under 28 U.S.C §2254(d). This section prohibits federal courts from granting habeas corpus relief for any claim that has been previously adjudicated on its merits by a state court unless it resulted in a decision contrary to clearly established Federal law or involved unreasonable determination of facts based on evidence presented during State court proceedings. Frost had argued that he received ineffective counsel due to their failure to argue multiple defenses simultaneously during his trial for robbery and burglary charges which led him being convicted and sentenced accordingly. However, the Supreme Court disagreed with this argument stating there was no legal precedent requiring attorneys to present simultaneous defenses.

In the dissenting opinion for Patrick Glebe v. Joshua James Frost, Justice Sonia Sotomayor argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding jury instructions on burden of proof. She contended that by not allowing Frost to argue both defenses simultaneously (that he did not commit robbery and that he acted under duress), his constitutional rights were violated as it effectively shifted the burden of proof onto him rather than keeping it with the prosecution. Furthermore, she criticized the majority’s application of harmless-error review in this case, stating their approach was inconsistent with previous rulings which held an error is harmless only if it can be concluded beyond a reasonable doubt that it didn't contribute to a verdict. In her view, there existed reasonable doubt about whether denying Frost his right to present multiple defenses affected his trial outcome.