Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 220.0

Cite as: 558 U. S. 53 (2009) 

59 

Opinion of the Court 

Kindler  may  once  have  been  entitled  to  bring.  Common­
wealth  v.  Kindler,  No.  2747  etc.  (July  23,  1997),  App.  183, 
187–188.  The Pennsylvania Supreme Court affirmed. 
Kindler, 554 Pa., at 514, 722 A. 2d, at 143. 

Kindler  then  sought  federal  habeas  relief.  The  District 
Court  determined  that  the  fugitive  forfeiture  rule  did  not 
provide an adequate basis to bar federal review of Kindler’s 
habeas  claims.  291  F.  Supp.  2d,  at  340–343.  The  District 
Court  then  proceeded  to  address  the  merits,  granting  Kin­
dler’s  petition  on  the  grounds  that  he  was  sentenced  based 
on  jury  instructions  that  were  unconstitutional  under  Mills 
v.  Maryland,  486  U. S.  367  (1988),  and  that  the  prosecutor 
improperly  introduced  an  aggravating  factor  at  sentencing. 
291  F.  Supp.  2d,  at  346–351,  357–358.  The  court  rejected 
Kindler’s ineffective assistance of counsel claim.  Id., at 356. 
The  Third  Circuit  afﬁrmed.  That  court  began  by  recog­
nizing  that  “[a]  procedural  rule  that  is  consistently  applied 
in  the  vast  majority  of  cases  is  adequate  to  bar  federal  ha­
beas  review  even  if  state  courts  are  willing  to  occasionally 
overlook it and review the merits of a claim for relief where 
the rule would otherwise apply.”  Kindler v.  Horn, 542 F. 3d 
70,  79  (2008).  The  Court  of  Appeals  then  considered  the 
Pennsylvania  fugitive  forfeiture  rule  in  place  at  the  time  of 
Kindler’s ﬁrst escape: “Pennsylvania courts had discretion to 
hear  an  appeal  ﬁled  by  a  fugitive  who  had  been  returned 
to  custody  before  an  appeal  was  initiated  or  dismissed. . . .  
Accordingly,  the  fugitive  forfeiture  rule  was  not  ‘ﬁrmly  es­
tablished’  and  therefore  was  not  an  independent  and  ade­
quate  procedural  rule  sufﬁcient  to  bar  review  of  the  merits 
of a habeas petitio[n] in  federal court.”  Ibid. (citing Doctor 
v.  Walters,  96  F.  3d  675,  684–686  (CA3  1996)).  The  court 
thus  determined  that  “the  state  trial  court  still  had  discre­
tion  to  reinstate  his  post-verdict  motions.  Accordingly,  we 
conclude  that,  under  Doctor,  Pennsylvania’s  fugitive  waiver 
law  did  not  preclude  the  district  court  from  reviewing  the 
merits  of  the  claims  raised  in  Kindler’s  habeas  petition.”