In the case of Slayton, Penitentiary Superintendent v. Smith (1971), the U.S Supreme Court dealt with issues related to habeas corpus and ineffective assistance of counsel. The respondent, Smith, was convicted for robbery in a Virginia state court and his conviction was upheld by the Virginia Supreme Court. He then sought federal habeas corpus relief on grounds that he had received ineffective assistance from his trial counsel because they failed to object when prosecution witnesses identified him as being previously involved in other crimes. The District Court granted relief but this decision was reversed by the Fourth Circuit which held that failure to make an objection did not necessarily constitute inadequate representation if it could be considered part of a reasonable trial strategy. The U.S Supreme Court vacated this judgment and remanded for further proceedings consistent with its opinion stating that while strategic choices made after thorough investigation are virtually unchallengeable; strategic choices made after less than complete investigation are reasonable only to the extent that reasonable professional judgments support limitations on investigation.

In the dissenting opinion for Slayton v. Smith, Justice William O. Douglas argued that the petitioner's constitutional rights were violated because he was not given effective assistance of counsel during his trial. He pointed out that the defense attorney failed to object to a confession obtained without proper Miranda warnings and did not challenge an illegal search and seizure conducted by police officers. The lawyer also neglected to present any witnesses or evidence in support of Smith's alibi, despite having access to such information prior to trial. According to Justice Douglas, these failures amounted to gross negligence on part of the defense attorney which deprived Smith of his Sixth Amendment right for competent legal representation at trial.