The concept of procedural default plays a pivotal role in the realm of criminal law and federal habeas corpus petitions. It can determine whether a claim raised in a federal habeas corpus petition will be reviewed or deemed inadmissible. To navigate this complex legal terrain, its essential to grasp the intricacies of procedural default, its causes, and strategies to overcome it. This blog post aims to provide a thorough explanation of procedural default, offering insights backed by case law precedents.
What is Procedural Default?
Procedural default occurs when a defendant fails to raise a particular issue during their trial or in subsequent proceedings, thereby forfeiting the right to raise it in later stages, such as a federal habeas corpus petition. In simpler terms, its a failure to follow the proper procedures or rules that govern the presentation of legal claims.
Causes
Several factors can contribute to procedural default:
- Failure to Object: If a defendant does not object to an issue during the trial, they may be barred from raising it later in a federal habeas petition.
- Failure to Appeal: Failing to appeal an adverse decision, or raise an issue on appeal, can result in the procedural default of a claim, barring consideration during federal court review.
- State Procedural Rules: State courts will have specific procedural rules that must be followed. Failure to comply with these state rules can lead to default, or preclusion, of the claim during federal court consideration.
- Time Frames: Habeas corpus petitions themselves have strict time limitations for filing. Missing these deadlines can result in the procedural default of every claim raised in a petition.
- Abuse of the Writ: Repeatedly raising the same claims without new evidence or arguments can lead to the procedural default of claims raised in a federal habeas corpus petition.
Case Law and Suggestions to Overcome Procedural Default
Overcoming procedural default requires careful navigation and strategic legal maneuvers. Here are some suggestions supported by case law:
Excuse for Default
In certain circumstances, courts may excuse procedural default if the petitioner can demonstrate cause for the failure to comply with the procedural rules. Examples of cause include ineffective assistance of counsel, mental incompetence, or external factors beyond the petitioner’s control.
Case Law Example: In Coleman v. Thompson, 111 S.Ct. 2546 (1991), the Supreme Court held that ineffective assistance of counsel during state post-conviction proceedings could serve as cause to excuse procedural default.
Showing Prejudice
Even if there’s procedural default, a petitioner may still have a chance to proceed if they can show that the error resulted in actual prejudice. Prejudice typically means that the error had an impact on the outcome of the case.
Case Law Example: In Murray v. Carrier, 106 S.Ct. 2639 (1986), the Supreme Court ruled that the petitioner could overcome procedural default by showing that the alleged constitutional error worked to his actual and substantial disadvantage.
Fundamental Miscarriage of Justice
In cases involving a fundamental miscarriage of justice, such as actual innocence, courts may overlook procedural default to prevent a manifest injustice.
Case Law Example: In Schlup v. Delo, 115 S.Ct. 851 (1985), the Supreme Court held that a petitioner asserting actual innocence could overcome procedural default if they could demonstrate that a constitutional violation probably resulted in the conviction of an innocent person.
Independent and Adequate State Grounds
If a state court’s decision to deny review of a claim is based on an independent and adequate state procedural ground (meaning the state court ruled that it won’t consider a claim due to a defendant’s failure to adhere to a state rule of procedure), federal courts will generally be precluded from reviewing the claim when raised in a federal habeas corpus petition.
Case Law Example: In Wainwright v. Sykes, 97 S.Ct. 2497 (1977), the Supreme Court ruled that a state procedural rule can serve as an independent and adequate state ground, barring federal habeas corpus review.
Procedural Default as an Affirmative Defense
Procedural default of a claim must be raised as an affirmative defense by the state. This means the state has the burden to affirmatively argue a petitioner’s raised claim is barred by procedural default. Petitioners must be prepared to counter this defense with evidence and legal arguments explaining why a claim isn’t barred by the procedural default doctrine.
Case Law Example: In Bousley v. United States, 118 S.Ct. 1604 (1998), the Supreme Court stated that the government bears the burden of proving procedural default as an affirmative defense in federal habeas corpus proceedings.
My Final Thoughts
In the realm of federal habeas corpus petitions, the pursuit of justice is an arduous journey fraught with obstacles and uncertainties. One of the biggest obstacles, which can be avoided with timely objections, appealing adverse rulings, adhering to time frames, and following state procedural rules. As defendants navigate the path progressing to federal habeas corpus proceedings, they must remain vigilant, resilient, and steadfast in their pursuit of justice. With diligence and an unwavering commitment, individuals can harness the power of federal habeas corpus to confront injustice and secure the vindication to which every individual is entitled under the law.
If you, or someone you know, will be pursuing federal habeas corpus relief following a state criminal conviction, our book, The Colossal Book of Criminal Citations, with an entire section dedicated to Procedural Bar, Default and Waiver of Claims, is a crucial resource in the pursuit of justice. Our books are in stock and ready for immediate shipping. Order your copy today, or on behalf of someone incarcerated. Our books are softcover and institution friendly.