Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/529bv.pdf
Page Number: 533

529US2

Unit: $U48

[09-26-01 10:25:49] PAGES PGT: OPIN

458

EDWARDS v. CARPENTER

Breyer, J., concurring in judgment

as a claimed “adequate and independent state ground” the
prisoner’s failure to raise the matter on his ﬁrst state-court
appeal. Suppose further that the prisoner replies by alleg-
ing that he had “cause” for not raising the matter on appeal
(call it C). After Carrier, if that alleged “cause” (C) consists
of the claim “my attorney was constitutionally ineffective,”
the prisoner must have exhausted C in the state courts ﬁrst.
And after today, if he did not follow state rules for present-
ing C to the state courts, he will have lost his basic claim,
FCC, forever. But, I overstate. According to the opinion
of the Court, he will not necessarily have lost FCC forever
if he had “cause” for not having followed those state rules
(i. e., the rules for determining the existence of “cause” for
not having followed the state rules governing the basic
claim, FCC) (call this “cause” C*). Ante, at 453. The pris-
oner could therefore still obtain relief if he could demon-
strate the merits of C*, C, and FCC.

I concede that this system of rules has a certain logic, in-
deed an attractive power for those who like difﬁcult puzzles.
But I believe it must succumb to this question: Why should
a prisoner, who may well be proceeding pro se, lose his basic
claim because he runs afoul of state procedural rules gov-
erning the presentation to state courts of the “cause” for
his not having followed state procedural rules for the pre-
in particular,
sentation of his basic federal claim? And,
why should that special default rule apply when the “cause”
at issue is an “ineffective-assistance-of-counsel” claim, but
not when it is any of the many other “causes” or circum-
stances that might excuse a failure to comply with state
I can ﬁnd no satisfactory answer to these questions.
rules?
I agree with the majority, however, that this case must be
returned to the Court of Appeals. Although the prisoner’s
“ineffective-assistance” claim is not barred, he still must
prove that the “assistance” he received was “ineffective”
(or some other “cause”). And, if he does so, he still must
prove his basic claim that his trial violated the Federal Con-