In the case of Rose, Warden v. Locke (1975), the United States Supreme Court ruled in favor of Rose, overturning a previous decision by the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals. The respondent, Locke, had been convicted for armed robbery and was serving his sentence when he filed a habeas corpus petition arguing that his Fifth Amendment rights were violated during trial because he was not allowed to cross-examine one of the prosecution's witnesses about their prior criminal record. The District Court denied this claim but it was later reversed by the Sixth Circuit on appeal which held that such denial constituted constitutional error under Davis v. Alaska. However, upon reaching Supreme court review it disagreed with this interpretation stating that Davis v. Alaska did not establish an absolute right to impeach credibility through evidence of prior convictions but rather required balancing between defendant’s right to confront witnesses against potential prejudice towards witness or confusion among jurors due to irrelevant information being introduced into proceedings. The Supreme court concluded that since there wasn't any indication suggesting state courts unreasonably applied these principles or acted arbitrarily in denying impeachment request hence no constitutional violation occurred thereby reversing earlier judgment from lower appellate court.

In the dissenting opinion for Rose v. Locke, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the majority's decision was a departure from established precedent regarding vagueness in criminal statutes. He contended that the Tennessee statute under which Locke was convicted did not provide sufficient notice of what conduct it prohibited and thus violated due process rights guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment. The law made it illegal to commit "a crime against nature," but failed to define or specify what such a crime entailed, leaving individuals uncertain about its meaning and judges with broad discretion in interpretation and application. This ambiguity could potentially lead to arbitrary enforcement based on personal biases rather than objective legal standards, undermining fairness in criminal justice proceedings.