In the case of Keith Smith, Warden v. Frank G. Spisak Jr., 2009, the U.S Supreme Court ruled in favor of Smith and reversed a decision by the Sixth Circuit Court that had granted habeas corpus relief to Spisak. The court held that any errors made during jury instructions or closing arguments did not have substantial impact on Spisak's sentencing outcome. Frank G. Spisak Jr., who was convicted for multiple murders at Cleveland State University in Ohio, argued his counsel’s ineffective assistance led to an unfair trial and death sentence due to inappropriate comments about his guilt and failure to present mitigating evidence properly during penalty phase proceedings. However, the Supreme Court found no reasonable probability that but for these alleged errors, result would have been different given overwhelming aggravating factors presented against him.

In the dissenting opinion for Keith Smith, Warden v. Frank G. Spisak Jr., Justice Stevens argued that the majority's decision was based on a misinterpretation of precedent and an overemphasis on procedural rules at the expense of substantive justice. He contended that Spisak’s attorney had failed to provide effective assistance during sentencing by emphasizing his client's negative traits rather than mitigating factors, which could have potentially spared him from death penalty. Furthermore, he criticized the majority for applying a standard of review that gave too much deferity to state court decisions without adequately considering whether those decisions were reasonable applications of clearly established federal law as determined by Supreme Court precedents.