In the case of Pickens v. Oliver, Warden (1967), the United States Supreme Court was asked to review a decision made by an Ohio state court. The petitioner, Pickens, had been convicted for armed robbery and sentenced to life imprisonment without parole in 1954. He argued that his constitutional rights were violated because he did not have legal counsel during his trial and appeal process as guaranteed under the Sixth Amendment. However, at that time it was not mandatory for states to provide attorneys for defendants who could not afford one unless they faced capital punishment charges. The U.S Supreme Court denied certiorari - meaning they refused to review or overturn the lower court's judgment - on grounds that when Pickens' conviction became final in 1955; it wasn't yet established law that states must provide counsel in non-capital cases if defendants couldn't afford one themselves (a right later affirmed by Gideon v Wainwright). Therefore, despite acknowledging potential violation of constitutional rights retrospectively due to changes in interpretation over time; no relief could be granted since those standards weren’t applicable then.

In the dissenting opinion for Pickens v. Oliver, Warden, 1967, it was argued that the majority's decision to grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner who had been convicted of murder without any federal constitutional violation was incorrect. The dissenting justices believed that there were no grounds for such relief as per Title 28 U.S.C., Section 2254 which states that a writ of habeas corpus cannot be granted unless it is shown that the state court's adjudication resulted in a decision contrary to or involving an unreasonable application of clearly established Federal law. They contended that this provision should apply even when new evidence comes into light after trial and appeal processes have concluded in state courts. Furthermore, they expressed concern over potential abuse of federal habeas corpus proceedings by prisoners seeking retrials based on newly discovered evidence rather than actual violations of their constitutional rights.