Document: 486 U.S. 214 108 S.Ct. 1771 100 L.Ed.2d 249 Tony B. AMADEO, Petitionerv.Walter ZANT, Warden. No. 87-5277. Argued March 28, 1988. Decided May 31, Syllabus Petitioner was convicted of murder and criminal attempt to commit theft in the Superior Court Putnam County, Georgia. In accordance with jury's recommendation death, court imposed death penalty for charge, a 10-year sentence attempted charge. While petitioner's direct appeal pending, an independent civil action involving challenge voting procedures County brought Federal District Court, which found that memorandum from Attorney's Office Jury Commissioners intentionally designed result underrepresentation black people women master jury lists all grand traverse (petit) juries were drawn. Bailey v. Vining, Civ.Action 76-199 MAC (MD Ga., Aug. 17, 1978). One plaintiffs' attorneys had uncovered while researching case. The concluded could not be used any purpose until unconstitutional discrimination been corrected, ordered reconstitute conformity Constitution. Citing Bailey, attorneys, on his appeal, raised composition indicted, convicted, sentenced petitioner. Affirming convictions sentences, Georgia Supreme rejected ground it came too late. After exhausting state remedies, petitioner sought writ habeas corpus basis issue, before same judge who decided Granting noting decision, established sufficient cause failure raise trial prejudice excuse procedural default. Appeals record insufficiently developed proper review question cause, remanded evidentiary hearing. On remand, held hearing at received testimony lawyers, lawyer assisted lawyers developing discovered then reaffirmed earlier conclusion demonstrated adequate reversed, stating "disagreed" Court's racial disparity concealed by county officials. instead readily discoverable public records, made considered tactical decision mount challenge. light its findings, constitutional law. Held: factual findings upon based default clearly erroneous should have set aside Appeals. Pp. 221-229. (a) Although "tactical" or "intentional" forgo opportunity normally cannot constitute counsel issue reasonably unknown him is situation requirement met. A showing legal claim available some interference officials compliance impracticable, constitutes cause. facts here permitted court's If because officials, if concealment, rather than considerations, reason court, ample offered grounds reversal order, concluding neither two predicates supported record. However, federal appellate may factfindings only they are "clearly erroneous," must give due regard credibility witnesses. viewed entirety establishes failed properly apply erroneous" standard. 221-223. (b) finding therefore erroneous. Based record, permissibly mere fortuity would "readily discoverable" investigated relevant trial. identified no evidence record—aside fact eventually discovered—that contradicted conclusions about concealment availability memorandum. 223-224. (c) did deliberately bypass also there significant support favored Appeals, contrary conclusion. Where permissible views evidence, factfinder's choice between them Here, lawyers' statements but ultimately simply credible. This directly contradictory other witnesses events contemporaneous selection process. lack precision bases furnishes ignore dictates clearly-erroneous standard engage impermissible factfinding. 224-229. 816 F.2d 1502 (CA 11 1987), reversed remanded. MARSHALL, J., delivered opinion unanimous Court. Stephen Bright, Atlanta, Susan V. Boleyn, respondent. Justice MARSHALL 1 considering motion corpus, successfully indicted him, death. case presents whether 2 * Amadeo November 1977 returned sentence. addition, 3 Nine months later, pursuing scheme Attorney underrepresent See involved at-large County. course case, one reviewed period 20 30 years handwritten sheet paper. missive bore caption designation, signature, date, file stamp Clerk's office. Under heading "Result," listed figures number placed their range 5 11%. App. 4. attorney asked Clerk where from, responded instructions lists. Id., 45. According Clerk, followed memorandum's instructions.1 9. 4 without giving rise prima facie under this Swain Alabama, 380 202, 208-209, 85 824, 829-830, 13 759 (1965) (underrepresentation less 10% insufficient prove intentional discrimination), Fifth Circuit's Preston Mandeville, 428 1392, 1393-1394 (1970) (13.3% case). 10, 78. Concluding supra, 7. order opening brief filed supplemental devoted solely argued waived discover purposeful discrimination. 14-18. nevertheless affirmed rejecting "comes late."2 State, 243 Ga. 627, 629, 255 S.E.2d 718, 720, cert. denied, 444 974, 469, 62 389 (1979). twice courts success, denied certiorari both times. 6 Petitioner's petition heard Judge noted composed so as citizens Accordingly, "[c]learly, tried unconstitutionally juries." Ibid. went explain waiver law, assert proceeding he within meaning Francis Henderson, 425 536, 542, 96 1708, 1711, 48 149 (1976). Observing soon inculpatory light, engaged "sandbagging" "deliberate bypass"—the principal concerns behind requirement. overlook "miscarriage justice," granted 80. 7 Eleventh Circuit Kemp, 773 1141 (1985). Acknowledging party requested nonetheless cause.3 1145. establish remand "[t]he specifics alleged method selecting jurors devious hidden nondiscoverable." 8 At hearing, issued oral 90-93. observed deal honestly reveal guided Commissioners' manipulation 92. that, circumstances "it reasonable [petitioner's lawyers] time appointed, list," ibid., adding, "I don't think deliberate by-pass sense." 93. specifically known memorandum, challenged jury. 9 divided panel reversed. (1987). id., 1507, stated "disagree[d] conclusion." detailing county's efforts alter . records" "would memorandum" examined records. further "made wanted preserve advantageous venire," although acknowledged conflicting point. n. these 10 dissenting threshold matter majority ignored obligation defer unless 1508, 1510, 1511. More broadly, dissent maintained "[w]here state's conceal misconduct trial, allowed rely rules preclude review." 1513. We certiorari, 484 912, 257, 98 (1987), we now reverse. II 12 Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 97 2497, 53 594 (1977), adopted "cause prejudice" petitioners seeking relief claims defaulted court. Sykes elaborate requirement, left open "for resolution future decisions precise definition 'cause'-and-'prejudice' standard." U.S., 87, S.Ct., 2507. more recent likewise conclusively contours standard, offer helpful guidance Reed Ross, 468 1, 104 2901, 82 (1984), explained 13-14, 2909, "the [cause] met." 14, 2909. later elaborated Ross existence ordinarily turn prisoner can show objective factor external defense impeded counsel's comply State's rule." Murray Carrier, 477 478, 488, 106 2639, 2645, 91 397 (1986). "a counsel, 'some officials' (citations omitted). contest, nor it, precedents. described fits squarely, indeed almost verbatim, our holdings Carrier. First, essentially "reasonably unknown" "objective factor" "some officials." 2645-2646 (citation Second, amounted make Ross,468 14 Hence, adequately never applied findings. It well settled, however, "due witnesses." Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 52(a); see Anderson Bessemer City, 470 564, 573-576, 105 1504, 1511-1512, 84 518 (1985) (describing generally); Wade Mayo, 334 672, 683-684, 68 1270, 1276, 92 L.Ed. 1647 (1948) (applying proceeding). stressed deferential one, explaining "[i]f district account plausible entirety, appeals reverse even though convinced sitting trier fact, weighed differently." 573-574, "record entirety" instant conclude A. 15 first lawyers. facts. F.2d, 1507. But examining discussing obligations Rule 52(a), expressed disagreement substituted own those ibid. (finding "not concealed," "was records"). 16 Even assuming, somewhat generously, recognized appropriate review, agree nature itself, part documentary 44. handwritten, unsigned, unstamped, undesignated—physical characteristics strongly belie notion document intended consumption. Moreover, originally testified sweeping investigation years' worth 42. He page materials I perusing somewhere stack [the Clerk] gave me." disputed, Indeed, matters. B 17 second Here drew heavily below, citing effect challenge, thought win bring pleased empaneled. 1506. emphasized white man history assaulting eager cited satisfied venire contained several members charismatic religious group seemed sympathetic Most damaging reliance statement " 'we knowing, array.' Ibid., quoting Record 13, 23. 18 face potent argues consider bypassed being pressed, argument statistical advanced argument. 1510-1511 (Clark, dissenting). alternative, thus 19 necessary address merits argument, conclusion, describe detail below. frequently erroneous." 574, 1511, United States Yellow Cab Co., 338 338, 342, 70 177, 179, 94 150 (1949), Inwood Laboratories, Inc. Ives Inc., 456 844, 102 2182, 72 606 (1982). reaffirm stricture today. longer representing when incentive insist every possible angle: lost capital another serious error proceedings. doubt. For thing, quite wrong won challenge; blacks engineered precisely avoid successful Absent "smoking gun" discrimination, certainly failed. explanation why such challenge.4 Thus, reject "ignorance" strength challenge—rather strategy—was true 21 refusal credit Christopher Coates, told E.R. Lambert, Lambert said: 'Well, know wish looking case.' 47. C. Nelson Jarnagin, him: 'If I'd prior would've it.' 59-60. discretion factfinder over potentially self-interested lawyers.5 575, 1512 (stressing special deference accorded determinations regarding witnesses). conflict 9, recognition difficult fathom. 22 Finally, pretrial motions change venue continuance next term which, granted, resulted entirely different venire. 61-65. Both juror claimed fair time. sworn undercut completely might persuasive after-the-fact assessments 23 To sure, conclusions. clear relying determinations, deferred dispute. precision, 52(a) Icicle Seafoods, Worthington, 475 709, 712-715, 1527, 1529-1530, 89 739 Because aside. Respondent does dispute law cause.6 erred holding procedurally barred review. judgment proceedings consistent opinion. 24 ordered. able determine race prospective drawn list registered voters racially segregated basis. Civ. Action 1978), p. requires indictment, Sanders 235 425, 425-426, 219 768, 771 (1975), voir dire commences, Spencer 781 1458, 1463-1464 (CA11 1986) (en banc). Noting State apparently conceded unconstitutional, satisfied. 1145, 6. 28: "THE COURT: mean what led you believe jury] .? "WITNESS PRIOR: can't answer that; just general knowledge probably wasn't statistically right know—I back up." 39 (witness offering specific question). hearsay, Jarnagin's prompted leading redirect examination. Nonetheless, objection either argue admission "plain error" Evidence 103(d). seems argue, established, suffered cognizable prejudice. Tr. Oral Arg. 57-58. irreconcilable respondent's predecessor's satisfies 67; Having point respondent will here. Washington Yakima Indian Nation, 439 463, 476, 20, 99 740, 749-750, 58 740 (1979) (alternative affirmance below).

Category: 0