Wainwright v. Sykes (1977) examined the availability of Federal habeas corpus to review a State convict's claim that testimony was admitted at his trial in violation of his rights under Miranda v. Arizona, a claim that the Florida courts have previously refused to consider on the merits of noncompliance with a State contemporaneous-objection rule. The U.S. Suprme Court concluded that the respondent advanced no explanation for his failure to object to the admission of his confession at trial, and the trial judge cannot be faulted for failing to question the admission of the confession. Since the other evidence of guilt presented at trial was also substantial to a degree that would negate any possibility of prejudice to the respondent from the admission of his confession, the Court ordered the case remanded to the district court with instructions to dismiss the respondent's petition for a writ of habeas corpus. Reed v. Ross (1984) considered whether Ross' attorney forfeited Ross' right to relief under "Mullaney" and "Hankerson" by failing, several years before those cases were decided, to raise on appeal the unconstitutionality of the jury instruction on the burden of proof. The Court affirmed the decision of the court of appeals in concluding that Ross' claim was sufficiently novel in 1969 to excuse his attorney's failure to raise the "Mullaney" issue at that time. The dissent is included for Wainwright v. Sykes.