Document ID: ./input/supremecourt_opinions/opinions/boundvolumes/558bv.pdf
Page Number: 214

OCTOBER  TERM,  2009 

53 

Syllabus 

BEARD,  SECRETARY,  PENNSYLVANIA  DEPART­
MENT  OF  CORRECTIONS, et al.  v.  KINDLER
 

certiorari to the united states court of appeals for 
the third circuit 

No. 08–992.  Argued November 2, 2009—Decided December 8, 2009 

Respondent Kindler was convicted of capital murder in Pennsylvania state 
court, and the jury recommended a death sentence.  Kindler ﬁled post-
verdict motions challenging his conviction  and sentence, but before the 
trial  court  could  consider  the  motions  or  the  jury’s  death  recommenda­
tion,  Kindler  escaped  and  ﬂed  to  Canada.  The  state  trial  court  subse­
quently  dismissed  Kindler’s  postverdict  motions  because  of  his  escape. 
Canadian  authorities  ultimately  captured  Kindler  and  held  him  in  jail 
pending extradition.  But before Kindler could be transferred from Ca­
nadian custody, he escaped again, this time remaining at large for more 
than  two  years.  He  was  eventually  recaptured  and  transferred  to  the 
United  States.  Once  back  in  this  country,  Kindler  sought  to  reinstate 
his  postverdict  motions,  but  the  trial  court  denied  relief,  holding  that 
the judge who had dismissed the motions had not abused his discretion 
under Pennsylvania’s  fugitive forfeiture  law.  Kindler argued  on direct 
appeal  that  the  trial  court  erred  in  declining  to  address  the  merits  of 
his postverdict motions, but the Pennsylvania Supreme Court afﬁrmed. 
Kindler’s  claims  were  rejected  on  state  habeas,  and  he  sought  federal 
habeas relief.  Under the adequate state ground doctrine, a federal ha­
beas  court  will  not  review  a  claim  rejected  by  a  state  court  “if  the 
decision of [the state] court rests on a state law ground that is independ­
ent  of  the  federal  question  and  adequate  to  support  the  judgment.” 
Coleman v.  Thompson, 501 U. S. 722, 729.  The District Court nonethe­
less  granted  Kindler’s  habeas  petition, determining  that  the  state  fugi­
tive  forfeiture  rule  did  not  provide  an  adequate  basis  to  bar  federal 
review of Kindler’s habeas claims.  The Third Circuit afﬁrmed, and the 
Commonwealth petitioned for certiorari.  It argued that the Third Cir­
cuit had held the state fugitive forfeiture rule automatically inadequate 
because the state courts had discretion in applying it, and the Common­
wealth sought review of that holding.  The Court granted that petition. 

Held:  A state procedural rule is not automatically “inadequate” under the 
adequate state ground doctrine—and therefore unenforceable on federal 
habeas review—because the state rule is discretionary rather than man­
datory.  The  question  whether  a  state  procedural  ruling  is  adequate  is 
itself a question of federal law.  Lee v.  Kemna, 534 U. S. 362, 375.  This