Document: 456 U.S. 152 102 S.Ct. 1584 71 L.Ed.2d 816 UNITED STATES, Petitioner,v.Joseph C. FRADY. No. 80-1595. Argued Dec. 8, 1981. Decided April 5, 1982. Rehearing Denied May 24, See 1001, 2287. Syllabus In 1963, respondent was convicted of first-degree murder and sentenced to death by a jury in the Federal District Court for Columbia, which at that time had exclusive jurisdiction over local felonies committed District. The Appeals Columbia Circuit, then acted as appellate court, upheld conviction but set aside sentence, resentenced life term. Respondent filed present motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 (the latest long series collateral attacks on his sentence), seeking vacate sentence ground he erroneously instructed meaning malice, thus allegedly eliminating any possibility manslaughter verdict. denied because failed challenge instructions direct appeal or prior motions. reversed, holding proper standard apply respondent's claim "plain error" Rule Criminal Procedure 52(b) governing relief from errors not objected trial, and, finding challenged instruction plainly erroneous, vacated remanded case new trial entry judgment. Held : 1. This has review decision below is required refrain doing so alleged based an adequate independent decision. There no basis concluding ruling should have been grounded law, rather than general federal law applied all Equal protection principles do require prisoner 1963 be treated though it were Code after 1970. Pp. 1590-1591. 2. Appeals' use 52(b)'s contrary long-established law. Because intended appeal, such out place when launches attack against society's legitimate interest finality judgment perfected expiration allowed affirmance appeal. To obtain must clear significantly higher hurdle would exist 162-166. 3. "cause actual prejudice" which, contemporaneous objection made, defendant show both "cause" excusing double procedural default "actual resulting complains. 167-169. 4. fallen far short meeting burden showing merely created prejudice they worked substantial disadvantage, infecting entire with error constitutional dimensions. strong uncontradicted evidence malice record, coupled utter failure come forward colorable without disposes contention suffered reversal 19 years later could justified. Moreover, examination shows likelihood same found guilty concluded, if only better framed crime manslaughter. 169-175. 204 U.S.App.D.C. 234, 636 F.2d 506, reversed remanded. Andrew L. Frey, Washington, D. C., petitioner. Daniel M. Schember, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court. 1 Rules permits criminal overturned instructions, even object erroneous before retired, 30. this we are asked decide whether applies brought 2255. 2 * A. 3 Joseph Frady, respondent, does dispute ago Richard Gordon killed Thomas Bennett front room victim's house Nonetheless, resolution depends what learned about Frady's crime, briefly recount happened, told witnesses summarized Appeals. Frady v. United States, 121 78, 348 84 (en banc), (Frady I), cert. denied, 382 909, 86 247, 15 160 (1965). 4 events leading up killing began 4:30 p. m. March 13, two women saw drive slowly Bennett's old car. Later, 7:00 m., accompanied Gordon's friend, Elizabeth Ryder, returned block. On second trip, Ryder overheard say "something there," point looked direction house. 5 After reconnoitering home, Gordon, drove across town restaurant, where joined George Bennett, brother. At restaurant heard tell "he needed get furniture things settled." She also ask "if hit man chest, you break rib fracture puncture lung, kill person?" answered "[y]ou pretty hard." Just left say: "If good job will bonus." car 11th Place, around corner parked, leaving motor running. going "just corner." As got out, him reach down pick something. see exactly was, "looked like cuff glove heavy material some kind." 6 A little 8:30 neighbor knocking door house, followed noise fight progress. 8:44 she called police. Within couple minutes, policemen patrol wagon arrived, one them emerge door. 7 Inside police officers shambles broken, disordered blood-spattered walls. lay dead pool blood. His neck chest horseshoe-shaped wounds metal heel plates leather boots head caved blows broken piece tabletop, significantly, bore fingerprints. One eyes knocked its socket. 8 Outside, policeman foot exclaim, "The cops!" emerged They immediately took flight, running toward their waiting automobile. Both pursued, foot, other wagon. ran, threw wallet pair gloves parked managed automobile scramble into being captured officer following arrived block departure. remark, "They've us." When arrested, covered Unlike victim, however, neither sustained injury, apart cut forehead. B 9 Although now admits caused "overwhelming,"1 States defended solely denying responsibility killing, suggesting through attorney another man, real murderer, seen while preoccupied apprehending Gordon. Consistent theory, did raise justification, excuse, mitigating circumstance. robbery, electrocution. 10 Sitting en banc, Circuit vote 8-1. I, supra. Apparently nine judges affirmed second-degree murder.2 11 Nevertheless, 5-4, court sentence. five majority unable agree rationale result. Four believed procedures used instruct poll penalty too ambiguous sustain death.3 fifth deciding cast judge who adopted, first procedure bifurcating guilt sentencing phases trial. U.S.App.D.C., 85, F.2d, 91 (McGowan, J., concurring). By narrow margin, escaped 12 Almost immediately, sentence,4 culminating us. C 13 initiated action filing 22555 vacation defective. Specifically, argued Appeals, cases decided disapproved identical those case. determined these rulings,6 improperly equated intent stating "a wrongful act . intentionally done therefore aforethought." 236, n. 6, 508, (1980). Also, incorrectly "the infers presumes weapon absence explanatory circumstances existence essential culpable homicide." id., 508. contended compelled presume thereby wrongfully eliminated verdict, since defined homicide malice.7 14 motion, many earlier reversed. held Fed.Rule Crim.Proc. 52(b), enunciated Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594 (1977), Francis Henderson, 425 536, 96 1708, 48 149 (1976), Davis 411 233, 93 1577, 36 216 (1973), Finding or, more realistically, Over vigorous dissent, full Government rehearing banc. We granted Government's petition writ certiorari properly invoked considering belated attack. 453 911, 101 3142, 69 994 (1981). II 16 Before merits, consider makes our grant certiorari. argues reviewing issues presented pertain normally interfere.8 17 courts exercise purely jurisdictional function rule offense. Thus, according controlling disposition motions Instead, special brand developed implement section benefit offenders controls. concludes disturbing below, decision.9 18 examine contention, necessary history. tried felonies, issuing binding decisions 1970, Reform Act (Court Act), Stat. 473, split jurisdictions, directing newly system retaining (with minor exceptions) existing part division jurisdiction, substituted statute court. D.C.Code 23-110 Act, alter hear postconviction appeals 2255, either prisoners offenses Act. 20 crux argument equal component Due Process Clause Fifth Amendment violated unless interpreted implicitly retroactively splitting, just District's system, According passage identically Superior suggests reason ruled subject pursuant 23-110, intervene dispute. 21 argument, made nor it. Nowhere opinion—or submissions Court10—is there hint may peculiarities unique Columbia. contrary, analysis authorities cited make relied motions, intend afford treatment simply Code. 22 erred so. believe Congress result suggests, attempt impossible task did. Furthermore, suggestions notwithstanding, fact, contemporaneously offense need always identically. noted Swain Pressley, 430 372, 379-380, 12, 1224, 1229, 51 example, persons laws they, unlike courts, bring challenges convictions Art. I judges.11 23 short, find whatever motions.12 Therefore, proceed merits. III 24 Nineteen complains malice. issue 30 declares pertinent part: 25 "No party assign portion charge omission therefrom objects thereto retires distinctly matter grounds objection." somewhat tempers severity It grants latitude correct particularly egregious regardless defendant's default: 26 "Plain defects affecting rights noticed although attention court." 27 means prompt redress miscarriages justice.13 terms, recourse infected "plain" prosecutor derelict countenancing it, absent timely assistance detecting reflects careful balancing encourage participants seek fair accurate insistence obvious injustice promptly redressed.14 1980 long-delayed clock turned back 1965 effect, take decided. 29 justification action, pointed single phrase U.S., 240-241, S.Ct., 1581-1582. asserted "no lenient waiver apply" review. Seizing phrase, lenient" meaning, stringent, challenge, despite authority. adopting accorded significance final Once chance waived exhausted, entitled stands fairly finally convicted, especially when, here, already opportunity claims forum. Our unreliable completed operation effect beyond next endless attacks. commands respect. 31 For reason, consistently service See, e.g., Addonizio, 442 178, 184-185, 99 2235, 2239-2240, 60 805 (1979); Hill 368 424, 428-429, 82 468, 471, 417 (1962); Sunal Large, 332 174, 181-182, 67 1588, 1592, L.Ed. 1982 (1947); Adams ex rel. McCann, 317 269, 274, 63 239, 87 268 (1942); Glasgow Moyer, 225 420, 428, 32 753, 755, 56 1147 (1912); re Gregory, 219 210, 213, 143, 55 184 (1911). recently occasion explain: "When enacted 1948, simplified making entered case, purport modify basic distinction between has, course, settled justify necessarily support reasons narrowly limiting judgments well known adversary justice." supra, 184, 2239 (footnotes omitted). 33 citation indicates interchangeable. 34 expressly stated plain-error inappropriate state prisoner's instructions: 35 "Orderly requires respective adversaries' views how enable deliver minimize risk committing reversible error. rare improper demonstrating prejudicial validity court's greater establish plain appeal." Henderson Kibbe, 431 145, 154, 1730, 1736, 52 203 (1977) (emphasis added) 37 Seemingly, clarity. Of us, Kibbe state, federal, attack, considerations comity constrain us here. But Government, less judgments. addition, counterparts, forums. balance, affording preferred status relief. 38 sum, lower depart. reaffirm well-settled principle appeal.15 39 confirmed extended (1977). Under standard, (1) default, (2) applying dual unnecessary determine shown cause, confident degree sufficient crime.16 40 prejudice, any, occasioned note Sykes refrained giving "precise content" term "prejudice," future further elaboration Id., 91, 2508. While import situations remains open question, past nevertheless eliminate doubt 41 Recently, STEVENS, dissent obtaining " 'whether ailing itself violates due process,' 'the undesirable, universally condemned.' 1736 (quoting Cupp Naughten, 414 141, 147, 146, 94 396, 400, (1973)).17 formulation, evaluated total context often emphasized: "[A] judged artificial isolation, viewed overall charge." 146-147, 400 (citations commonly culmination includes testimony witnesses, counsel, receipt exhibits evidence, judge. Thus process several components conviction." 400. 42 established standards IV 43 bases prejudiced assertion given relieved proving element murder, reasonable doubt, that, overturned.18 44 So stated, concerning charged amounts per se, particular individual precedents, hold otherwise. Contrary suggestion, shoulder showing, 45 do. outset, emphasize different affirmative indicating wrongly innocent. remembered, assert beat claimed nothing crime. overwhelming, abandoned theory 95, 101. Since time, never own testimony, mitigation, excuse reduce 46 Indeed, record compels conclusion dissenters denial banc put "malice aplenty." 245, 517. twice reconnoitered afternoon evening murder. conversation "were assassins hired away brother." 97, 103 (Miller, concurring dissenting part). scene discarded during flight police, Finally, unspeakable brutality itself. 47 enough closest case—the banc—were unanimous least murder—a Nine ten went further, jury's verdict premeditated deliberate intent. conclude perceive fundamental miscarriage justice 49 Should remain, framed, jury, all, premeditated—murder. 50 precisely finding, gave premeditation deliberation: "[P]remeditation formation plan kill, positive design kill. considered defendants. "It your duty facts surrounding reflection consideration amounting deliberation occurred. If so, exceedingly brief duration, sufficient, fact length continued important. appreciable period elapsed defendants deliberated order established, deliberation; lapse days hours minutes." Tr. 402-63 (DC), 806, reprinted App. 28. contrast, presence kind mitigation reduces it: [sic ] prove are: 54 "One, inflicted wound deceased died, "Two, struck sudden passion, defendants' passion aroused provocation. mean include rage, resentment, anger, terror fear; expression 'sudden passion.' these. "Provacation, manslaughter, adequate, might naturally induce anger moment commit deed. provocation upon mind average causing lose self-control. 57 "In addition great provocation, hot blood Mere words, insulting, offensive abusive, provoked, explained, manslaughter." 809, 58 Plainly, rational formed "plan kill" "reflection deliberation," "sudden self-control." be, circumstances, instead disclaiming involvement killing.19 Surely chances jury. V 59 overcome justified interests proceedings consistent opinion. ordered. 61 THE CHIEF JUSTICE MARSHALL 62 concurring. my view relevance cause counsel's Court's, 94-97, 2510-2511, (STEVENS, concurring); Rose Lundy, 455 509, 538, 1198, 1213, 379 dissenting); Engle Isaac, 107, 136-137, 1, 1558, 1576 783 part), Court's focuses character appropriate. 64 BLACKMUN, 65 Like BRENNAN, applicability proceeding. view, recognizing discretion nullifies cause-and-prejudice requirement articulated disserves policies underlying requirement. 66 Despite assertions ignored "long-established authority," ante, 164, Rule's seemingly broad language supporting restriction scope. doctrine specifically applicable stages proceedings, points post, 179-180, 182 nn. 6. Even striking, explicitly "apply Civil Procedure, whichever deems most appropriate, rules."* premised notion contemporaneous-objection rules respect—in preserving effecting administrative goals designed serve. 88-90, 2507-2508. concedes, Seeante, 166. objective requirement—to enforce particular, ensure finality—is, similarly irrelevant where, explicit exception applicable. Giving express hardly inconsistent rule. Where falls within exception, comply inapplicable 68 constitutes 30's objections instructions. characterized identified error, correctly refused described approach not, charges, "affor[d] relief." Ante, recognized met State declined Ulster County Allen, 140, 148-154, 2213, 2220-2223, 777 87, 2506; 542, 1711, (1976). Similarly, barrier differ vary contours jurisdiction's variance distinguish prisoners, respecting differences creates impermissible distinction. approach—refusing give rule, exceptions analogous rules—that gives "preferred status." 70 appeal," sacrificing convictions. observes, acknowledging merge 180-181, 2; 186, 2240, Court, demonstrated "so process," 52(b). Accordingly, concur 72 dissenting. 73 frequently dissented progressive emasculation E.g., 783; Sumner Mata, 449 539, 552, 764, 771, 722 (1981); 99, 2512, (1977); Stone Powell, 428 465, 502, 3037, 3056, 1067 (1976); 1584, (1973) (MARSHALL, dissenting). Today takes step unfortunate path declaring petitions doing, pause nature Rule. Nor proceeding distinguished civil 2254. obviously both, dissent. 74 75 Rule, "out place" collaterally attacking conviction. 164. power notice stage courts' obligation justice. That qualifies characterizes entitlement convicted. Ibid. 76 ante 163, 52(b)1 restatement role empower cases, seriously affect "fairness, integrity public reputation judicial proceedings." Atkinson, 297 157, 160, 391, 392, 80 555 (1936). Significantly, appear headings "Preliminary Proceedings," "Trial," "Appeal," "General Provisions" Rules, courts. 77 possibly innocent defendant, see, Mann, 557 1211, 1215-1216 (CA5 1977), severely undermine proceeding, Vaughan, 443 92, 94-95 (CA2 1971). mitigates harsh impact adversarial generally bound conduct lawyer, providing exceptional lawyer's "has salutary prosecution's intelligent wishes guard cannot rely incompetence inexperience but, protect mistakes counsel." 8B J. Moore, Moore's Practice ¶ 52.02[2] 78 permits, directs, error; recognize admonished cautiously, Diez, 515 892, 896 1975), resort "exceptional circumstances," 392. Yet, holds deny actions text history errs.2 79 assumption built dictum habeas corpus agree, 2254 actions, accept fails congressional 2254,3 2255,4 prisoners. enacting §§ explicit: Section provided separate petitioner sentenced." S.Rep.No.1526, 80th Cong., 2d Sess., (1948).5 reaffirmed approved 1976. 90 1334. Advisory Committee's Notes repeatedly continuation 3, 11, U.S.C., pp. 280, 282, 287.6 81 directs "[i]f prescribed rules, district [considering 2255] lawful manner statute, rules." (Emphasis added.) contrast parallel 2254, provides: extent [the cases], applied, ." added). today blurs ignores Congress' mention authorization Procedure. "preferred" status. bar bind tightly counterparts barriers. State-court state-court convictions, Nelson State, 208 So.2d 509 (Fla.App.1968); People Weathers, 83 Ill.App.3d 451, 453, Ill.Dec. 422, 404 N.E.2d 1011, 1012 (1980); Wright Md.App. 68, 70, 363 A.2d 520, 522 Riggs Or.App. 109, 114, 622 P.2d 327, 329 indeed, waiving bar, can permit well. Mullaney Wilbur, 421 684, 688, 7, 95 1881, 1884, 508 (1975). source respite "airtight [procedural] forfeitures," 101, 2513 (BRENNAN, dissenting), lies discretionary power. parity prisoners; unduly restricts remedy injustice. notes, 166, concerns underlie opinions establishing obstacles confinement, 550, 770; 491, 31, 3051, 31; 541, true, asserted, tensions inherent federal-court substantive yield times similar tension exists directed him. allows common waive defaults requires. add instance obscured Now, ironically, again obscures avoid application With each obfuscation distinction, erected "procedural hurd[le]," 136, decides pre-empts continue antithetical 'federal personal liberty shall fullest plenary review,' "7 origin finds inapplicable. taken talismanic perhaps order. 85 originated (1973). Davis, 12(b)(2) Procedure8 composition grand Relying shown" 12(b)(2), Shotwell Manufacturing Co. 371 341, 448, 357 (1963) (a construed encompassing inquiry prejudice), divined jury: cognizable showed "prejudice." 243-245, 1583-1584. foundation incredible "house cards whose systematic inspection." 100, 2513, Notwithstanding lack purpose except proceedings,9 who, raised 541-542, 1711; 548, 1714 Building strained foundation, declare occurring defendant. coming circle, relies pre-empt defeat excludes available Any consistency announcement teeth strain subordinate supposed government finality. 88 determination ride roughshod intention curtail remedies evident passing offered Brief 41, 34, adopted BLACKMUN judgment, event, constituted rights. admittedly close question record.10 89 inferring unobjected "substantial rights." plausible counter occurs me elements 26-29. preclude concluded difficult conclusion, base it's ground, Appellant 79-2356 (CADC), (pro se ). sole dissenter, Judge Skelly Wright, "intent inflict serious unaccompanied premeditation, requires, specific kill." (dissenting part) deliberately injure 97. (who serving Appeals) having jurors illiterate morons." 113 (concurring 2, (1980), four 1965, 1974, 1975, 1976, 1978. last resulted sentences robbery run concurrently consecutively. 197 69, 607 383 (1979) II). provides "A custody claiming right released imposed violation Constitution impose excess maximum authorized otherwise move vacate, sentence." Belton 127 201, 204-205, 150, 153-154 (1967); Green 132 98, 99-100, 405 1368, 1369-1370 (1968) (Green I); Wharton, 139 293, 297-298, 455-456 (1970). contest rulings. Fryer 38, 207 134, 138 (manslaughter unlawful human malice") deleted), 346 885, 135, 98 389 (1953); 296, 454 (malice differentiating manslaughter"). judge's "[a] person presumed natural [and] probable consequences act." 237, 7. unconstitutional Sandstrom Montana, 510, 2450, (1979), "[t]he intends ordinary voluntary acts" impermissibly lead juror presumption conclusive. issue, said Fisher 328 463, 476, 1318, 1324, 1382 (1946): "Matters relating enforcement [of Columbia] entrusted policy interfere fashion, save committed." argue 1254(1) should, discretion, exercising winning pro extensively discussing regarding nowhere suggested reached issue. Brown, 157 311, 483 1314 (federal, local, bail appellant harsher courts). unclear face favorable motion. highest written "[o]ur 1973, nearly functionally equivalent construing rule." Butler 388 883, 886, (1978). similarities however. reminded us: administration matters affected limitations peculiarly concern." 1324. restated U.S.C.App., 1478, citing Wiborg 163 632, 658, 1127, 1137, 289 (1896) ("although raised, yet absolutely vital defendants, feel ourselves it"). (1936) ("In interest, may, taken, obvious, fairness, proceedings"). Courts sparingly, Gerald, 624 1291, 1299 1980) ("Plain 'both substantial'. run-of-the-mill remedy. serve ends justice; 'only [where necessary] justice' omitted)), 450 920, 1369, DiBenedetto, 542 490, 494 (CA8 1976) ("This along general, sparingly prevent justice" omitted)). address engaged original course hearing BRENNAN opinion, 182-183, 176, n., Justices contend directive surprising approving authorize regulate appeals, invoke hearing, sufficiently play proceedings. mandate force Note 287, refers reader "[f]or discussion" possible restrictions provision (which rules"). 275, explains "allow[s] (unless corpus) appropriate rigidly inequitable framework corpus." explained above, "inconsistent framework" occurred disapproving objection, asserts, futile. regard, reject 150 (1967). seemed clearcut, attributed inadvertence judge, stating: "We slip tongue capable judge—assuming reporter right—would corrected." 205, 154. Likewise, inadvertently." 1370. light decisions, here "[i]t futile current 1967 1968." 33. 783, addressed argument. involved convict. States', relevant strictures jurisdictions. tried, (and still is) "purposely" "of malice." 22-2401 Murder (other murder) 22-2403. Culpable killings statutes defining passed turn century, Mar. 1901, 1321, ch. 854, 798, 800, codification common-law definitions, displace. O'Connor 399 (D.C.App.1979); Hamilton App.D.C. 382, 385 (1905). definition codified, Pender, 309 492 (D.C.App.1973). various degrees 1967: homespun terminology, intentional cold blood, impulse heat passion. [A] conceived convinced interval thought, turning mind—and mere persistence initial ". An produced fear—is reduced self-control reflection." Austin 180, 188, 129, 137 homicides Bullock 220, 221, 122 214 (1941): "Statutes ours, reflect belief meditates executes dangerous, reformation kills impulse; prospect likely deter men impulsive killer murder; not." Nor, 18, alone reversal. reverse obtained (1967), disapprove deadly weapon, observation "jury infer 206, 155. Howard 128 336, 287 defective given. raising self-defense faulty 1368 (1968); 451 "mandate Procedure," 167, 15, determining discussion, footnote, beside point. observes "differs" former "includes civil." 287. And apparently accompanying Fed.R.Civ.P. 81(a)(2). subscribe 'inconsistent framework' 167-168, quoting 11. rights," commentator disjunctive form distinguishing "errors" (e.g., exclusion evidence) "defects" pleading), event allowing obscure 165. significant remain unaffected actions. preserved, "fundamental character" "renders irregular invalid." (1979). (1962). Title "State custody; "(a) Supreme thereof, circuit entertain behalf treaties States." "Federal Custody; sentence: time. "An section, entertained appears applicant relief, him, inadequate ineffective test legality detention." of, much broader than, ancient coram nobis. inadequate. (1948). H.R.Rep.No.308, 1st A180 (1947). Hayman, 342 263, 232 (1952). states "Whereas sections 2241-2254 (dealing custody) speak 'issuing writ' operative remedy, movant's meritorious, 'shall discharge resentence appropriate.' legislative S. 20, Congress, provisions incorporated title 2255." 280. fee 2255: "[A]s fee." 283. amended 1979 provide governed 4(a), Appellate 4(b), provision. states: "Even [this provision] law." 695 (1976 ed., Supp.IV). "This differs civil. continuing (see advisory committee 1) prisoners." 543, 1712, (1976) Fay Noia, 372 822, 841, 837 (1963). "Defenses institution prosecution indictment information Failure defense herein waiver." citation, proprio vigore govern post-conviction 241, 1582. statement wrong! rate, on, ipse dixit, "inconceivable" action. 242, certainly [respondent] murder." 240, 512

Category: 0