Document: 455 U.S. 509 102 S.Ct. 1198 71 L.Ed.2d 379 Jim ROSE, Warden, Petitionerv.Noah Harrison LUNDY. No. 80-846. Argued Oct. 14, 1981. Decided March 3, 1982. Syllabus Title 28 U.S.C. §§ 2254(b) and (c) provide that a state prisoner's application for writ of habeas corpus in federal district court based on an alleged constitutional violation will not be granted unless the applicant has exhausted remedies available courts. After respondent was convicted certain charges Tennessee his convictions were affirmed, he unsuccessfully sought postconviction relief court. He then filed petition Federal District Court under § 2254, alleging four specified grounds relief. The writ, notwithstanding included both claims had been courts those been. Appeals affirmed. Held : judgment is reversed case remanded. 624 F.2d 1100, John C. Zimmermann, Nashville, Tenn., petitioner, pro hac vice, by special leave Court. D. Shannon Smith, Cincinnati, Ohio, respondent. Justice O'CONNOR delivered opinion Court, except as to Part III-C. 1 In this we consider whether exhaustion rule 2254(b), requires dismiss containing any have Because requiring all furthers purposes underlying statute, hold must such "mixed petitions," leaving prisoner with choice returning exhaust or amending resubmitting present only 2 * Following jury trial, Noah Lundy rape crime against nature, sentenced State Penitentiary.1 Criminal affirmed Supreme denied review, unsuccessful post-conviction Knox County 3 subsequently relief: (1) right confrontation because trial limited defense counsel's questioning victim; (2) fair prosecuting attorney stated violent character; (3) prosecutor improperly remarked closing argument State's evidence uncontradicted; (4) judge instructed every witness presumed swear truth. reviewing records, however, concluded it could three "in framework" grounds. nevertheless assessing atmosphere cause taken whole these items may referred collaterally."2 4 Apparently effort assess "atmosphere" reviewed transcript identified 10 instances prosecutorial misconduct, five which raised before courts.3 addition, although purportedly ruling respondent's fourth ground relief—that charged "every truth"—the nonetheless held instruction, coupled restriction cross-examination victim prosecutor's "personal testimony" weight evidence, see n. supra, violated trial. conclusion, stated: 5 "Also, subject question remedies, where there added comment Attorney General story presented state's witnesses mixture violations one cannot separated from considered independently others. 6 7 ". . Under charge given, limitation cross examination victim, flagrant misconduct compelled find petitioner did receive Sixth Amendment rights poisoned misconduct."4 8 short, several never challenged appellate courts, even petition. 9 Circuit 1100 (1980), concluding unreported order properly found "seriously impaired improper prosecutrix misconduct." specifically rejected should dismissed unexhausted claims. II urges apply "total exhaustion" contains claims.5 argues at length policy comity doctrine gives first opportunity correct errors minimizes interference disruption judicial proceedings. also believes uniform adherence total reduces amount piecemeal litigation. 11 petitioner's approach, would claims, giving litigate proceeding reluctant choose latter route since could, appropriate circumstances Habeas Corpus Rule 9(b), subsequent petitions abuse writ.6 other words, if amended delete immediately refiled lose presently This addressed III-C opinion. 12 evaluate merits arguments, turn its legislative history, policies doctrine. III A. 13 existed long codification Congress 1948. Ex parte Royall, 117 241, 251, 734, 740, 29 L.Ed. 868 (1886), wrote matter comity, claim until after act: 14 "The injunction hear summarily, thereupon 'to dispose party law justice require' does deprive discretion time mode exert powers conferred upon it. That exercised light relations existing, our system government, between tribunals Union States, recognition fact public good disturbed unnecessary conflict equally bound guard protect secured Constitution." 15 Subsequent cases refined principle unusual circumstances. See, e.g., United States ex rel. Kennedy v. Tyler, 269 13, 17-19, 46 1, 2-3, 70 138 (1925) (holding lower none questions "In regular ordinary course procedure, power highest respect exhausted"). Hawk, 321 114, 117, 64 448, 450, 88 572 (1944), reiterated basis doctrine: "it controlling interfere administration 'in rare exceptional peculiar urgency are shown exist.' "7 None cases, applied 16 1948, codified citing Hawk correctly stating exhaustion.8 Section 2254,9 directly address problem mixed petitions. To sure, provision states remedy exists procedure raise "the presented," but believe phrase too ambiguous sustain conclusion intended either permit prohibit review history well pre-1948 no reference petitions,10 likelihood thought problem.11 Consequently, analyze statutory determine proper scope. Philbrook Glodgett, 421 707, 713, 95 1893, 1898, 44 525 (1975) (" 'In expounding look provisions law, object policy' " (citations omitted)); Bacto-Unidisk, 394 784, 799, 89 1410, 1418, 22 726 (1969) ("where statute's language seem[s] insufficiently precise, 'natural way' draw line 'is purpose' (citation Sisson, 399 267, 297-298, 90 2117, 2134, 26 608 (1970) ("The axiom endeavor give meaning nurtures legislation guides us when plainly covered terms statute subsumed committed"); Unexcelled Chemical Corp. 345 59, 64, 73 580, 583, 97 821 (1953) ("Arguments relevant example hiatus filled ambiguities resolved"). B 17 principally designed courts' role enforcement prevent See Braden 30th Judicial Kentucky, 410 484, 490-491, 93 1123, 1127, 35 443 (1973).12 system, "courts [are] U.S., S.Ct., 740. unseemly dual government upset conviction without violation," "teaches defer action causes within jurisdiction another sovereignty concurrent powers, already cognizant litigation, pass matter." Darr Burford, 339 200, 204, 587, 590, 94 761 (1950). Duckworth Serrano, 454 18, 19, (1981) (per curiam ) (noting requirement "serves minimize friction systems allowing initial prisoners' rights"). 18 A rigorously enforced encourage prisoners seek full thus error. As number who their increases, become increasingly familiar hospitable toward issues. 490, 1127. Equally important, fully more often accompanied complete factual record aid review. Cf. 2254(d) (requiring presume findings made court). 19 facts underscore need encouraging opinion, Judge "there others." two intertwined ones, apparently Requiring dismissal relieve difficult impossible task deciding related, reduce temptation 20 dissent, STEVENS suggests evaluated context entire trial." Post, 541. Unquestionably, erred considering expressly State." 9, supra. Moreover, extent interrelated, general among Courts Triplett Wyrick, 549 57 (CA8 1977); Miller Hall, 536 967 (CA1 1976); Hewett North Carolina, 415 1316 (CA4 1969). 21 Rather than "adventure lawmaking" (STEVENS, J., post, 539), holdings today reflect interpretation consistent policies. There today's "complicate delay" resolution 550), serve "trap unwary se prisoner." (BLACKMUN, 530.) On contrary, provides simple clear instruction potential litigants: you bring court, sure each Just petitioners managed use machinery, so they able master straightforward requirement. Those misunderstand submit entitled resubmit remainder increasing burden strict single benefit, result likely proceeding, providing focused thorough C 23 principal interest, course, obtaining speedy impair interest can always amend rather By invoking risk forfeiting consideration 2254 finds failure assert [new] prior constituted writ." 6, Advisory Committee Rules notes 9(b) incorporates judge-made governing set forth Sanders 373 83 1068, 1078, 148 (1963), 24 "[I]f deliberately withholds collateral filing application, hope being hearings some reason, deemed waived hearing second presenting withheld ground. same true if, Wong Doo, abandons hearing. Nothing traditions tolerate needless entertain proceedings whose purpose vex, harass, delay."13 25 Note U.S.C., p. 273. Thus decides proceed sets aside risks IV sum, promotes unreasonably relief, claims.14 Accordingly, reversed, remanded 27 It ordered. BLACKMUN, concurring judgment. important issue conservative espoused now Appeals, Fifth Ninth Circuits, ante, 513, 5, required (c), approach adopted eight Appeals—that statute. basic issue, I firmly agree majority Appeals. 30 do dispute value applicable productive harmony nor deny clearly embrace. What troubles me rule, read into concedes, 516-517, sheer force; operates trap uneducated indigent prisoner-applicant; delays frivolous; tends increase, alleviate, caseload burdens old expression, Court's seems "throw baby out bath water." Although purporting rely based, uses "a blunderbuss shatter attempt litigation regard underlie called existence." Ky., (1973). require reaches; fact, support call impact whatsoever workings habeas, alter, fear, techniques very few petitioners. 31 32 observes, neither mandates Nor precedent dictate reached here. Picard Connor, 404 270, 92 509, 438 (1971), example, ruled "once fairly satisfied." Id., 275, 512 (emphasis supplied). Respondent complied direction challenges court's least allegedly comments. 33 fails note, moreover, utilize satisfy precedents treatment petitions, suggest inevitably given safeguard him petition.1 34 reversing Circuit, focuses, must, serve. importance validity based. But concerns sacrificed permitting relied involves offshoot federal-state comity. hopes preserve protecting rights, afford and—somewhat patronizingly—to "become issues." Ante, 519. My proposal, inconsistent concern comity: indeed, occasion challenge, ample error, habeas. 36 respects, appears destructive solicitous Remitting patently frivolous serious, hardly demonstrates judiciary's resources spent rejecting obviously meritless claim, doubtless little attention focuses substantial claim. "conceive reason why wish calendar narrow predetermined established principles." Roberts LaVallee, 389 40, 43, 194, 196, 41 (1967).2 37 interests administration—ensuring facilitate relieving responsibility determining interrelated. If particular challenge relating claim.3 And Draconian necessary obligation advanced interrelated yet When believes, it, inadequate impossible, free pending Certainly, makes sense commit decisions specific case. 38 interrelatedness difficulty distinguishing related unrelated Mixed toto issues logically depend relevance issue," 967, 969 1976), "would necessarily affected ." McBride Fay, 370 547, 548 (CA2 1966). Thus, factors understanding totality therefore necessitate record. Compare Johnson 519 738, 740 1975) (prisoner's voluntariness guilty plea mentally incompetent effective assistance counsel); DeFlumer Mancusi, 380 1018, 1019 1967) (dispute regarding affect coerced confession voluntary entered advice counsel waiver non-jurisdictional defects stage proceedings"); F.2d, 548; Martin McMann, 348 896, 898 1965) (defendant's obtained adequate warnings), (no interrelationship involved allegations police lacked probable search defendant's van justification failing secure warrant, maintained arresting officer committed perjury suppression hearing); Levy 402, 1968). 39 efficient militates today. comply ruling, summarily exhausted. many decision involve negligible additional effort. realize work done. exhausted, return eventually, thereby necessitating duplicative claims—perhaps judge. STEVENS' dissenting 545. way back stale difficult.4 40 society "preserv[ing] 'swift imperative illegal restraint confinement,' final weighed balance. Compelling repeat journey through legal process receiving entails delay.5 undergoing delay 520-521, likewise forced sacrifice swiftness availability unconstitutional imprisonments.6 Dismissing while diminish promptness efficacy and, time, described Court.7 misguided premised specter sophisticated litigious intent strategy .," aim day Galtieri Wainwright, 582 348, 369 (CA5 1978) (en banc) (dissenting opinion). Even said view accurately reflects reality, frustrate Perry Masons prison populations. avoid dismissal, simply include successive dismissed, BRENNAN "abused writ" choosing, delay, 535-536 (opinion part part). meet "abuse standard irrespective incentive consolidate 42 Instead deterring understands, wishes circumvent, rules exhaustion, knowledgeable about intricacies new release prison. conceivable accelerate costs. But, unwittingly includes motion 43 files option complaint deleting 510, 520. permitted strike presented, fail understand what fuss about. event, virtually indistinguishable directs itself mistakenly treated uniformly. awareness existence alternative sympathetic informs permits amendment. Fed.Rule Civ.Proc. 15(a). refile striking begin anew encounter again comes attention. STEVENS, 546, 15. 45 Adopting favorable is, believe, antithetical writ. nuances complaint, merits. affirm Appeals' petition, remand reconsideration arguments. notes, Lundy's 511-513. attempted recharacterize grant ignored App. 95-96.8 47 recharacterization accurate, misconduct". 96. appear reaching took account purported 511-512, 3. ambiguity statement indicate alone, combined effect asserted misconduct. 48 case, directing below examine not, warrant 49 BRENNAN, whom MARSHALL joins, part. 50 join (Parts I, II, III-A, III-B, IV, ante ), plurality (Part III-C, ). holding obliges dismiss, merits, "leaving court." 510. disagree plurality's view, "risk court" "decides claims" face refusal "mixed" 520, 521. 9(b)'s brought us—it briefed argued parties. Therefore, proposed disposition issue. my 51 recognizes, enacting explicitly announced (1963). illustrates standard. transmitted Congress, follows: 52 "SUCCESSIVE PETITIONS. allege different determination or, alleged, excusable." H.R.Rep.No. 94-1471, (1976) U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News, pp. 2478, 2485 added). 53 interpretive gloss placed Governing Cases that: 54 "With asserting previously decided noted: 55 [']In avoided Government pleading. 56 [']Thus, ground.['] 17-18 [83 1078]. 58 "Subdivision (b) [of 9] incorporated inexcusable." 273 59 language, explaining went far enough gain Report House Judiciary that, 'not excusable' Rule] created undefined gave broad petition." 2482 recommended "is excusable," replaced "constituted 8, 2482, 2485. change, believed, "into conformity existing law." 2482. Committee's revised form—employing "abusive" dismissal—that became law. 60 plain construction history. accurate standard, explanatory Committee, Congress' strengthening amendment text Rule. plurality, entirely misreading Sanders, embraces manifestly incorrect, exposition expressed expectations. 61 quoted 521, 62 delay." 1078. 63 From concludes: "Thus petitions." distorts language. concerned withhold[ing] grounds" reason." might inferred hearing." Finally, faced "needless litigation" "collateral crystal knowingly chose get "one bite apple." allow much broader class permits. 65 free, overrule Sanders. conclusion. For "judge-made" positive enacted 9(b). principle, explained Note, "requires [habeas] Indeed, beyond believing "inexcusable" easy. instead behavior drastic employed. how understood ignore understanding, embedded 66 reinforces misread hypothesizes presents who, rejected, equates position discussed theSanders passage. hypothetical different. refuses petition—as view—then "abandonment" meaningful termed "deliberate," term used "speedy claims"—to entitled, recognizes citation toBraden, 520—then possess "purpose delay," "hope one." 67 suggested flatly contradicts fortiori strengthened extended Congress. first, mandatorily scrutiny, "find "new," itself, condition falls further short higher, eventually 68 conclude original, later brings earlier refused hearing, employed absent truly suggesting abuse. mind inescapably explanation Rule, incorporation contrast, whatever sources. Nor, Court.* 69 WHITE, most BRENNAN's opinion; like dismised entirety, them. prefers dismissed. ripe dismisses tax returns seeking dissenting. 72 raises authority judges. duty exceeded, restraints scope state-court judgments. Ironically, correcting fashions merely BLACKMUN demonstrates, impose An disapproval adventure lawmaking conception States. 74 nature. testimony corroborated eyewitness during sadistic episode. guilt sufficient; convincing. emotional, controverted, adversary proceedings, error occurred. Two remark prosecutor1 victim2—were recognized harmless setting conviction, 75 corpus, confront obtain impermissibly commented testify3 truth."4 "not them framework." 88. added, collaterally."5 76 significance precisely arriving sufficiently prejudicial justify ordering retrial.6 sufficient court—like court—had occurred aggravated mitigated aspects proceeding.7 formed differing judgments happen share appraisal followed correct. 77 holds, procedural errors. "Unquestionably," according wrong portions evaluating More fundamentally, pleadings. Both unsatisfactory reason: assumes character same. analysis, petition—no frivolous—is command postpone meritorious obvious outrageous be. 78 fungible. types. frequently encountered attaches label disclose right. category. import reversal direct appeal, still fresh retrial promptly conducted. Chapman California, 386 22, 87 824, 827, 705; Harrington 395 250, 254, 1726, 1728, 284. third category appeal reveal kind fundamental unfairness accused attack Stone Powell, 428 465, 96 3037, 1067.8 infect integrity obtained. defined precisely; concepts "fundamental fairness" frozen time. best illustrated recalling classic issuance corpus—that dominated mob violence;9 perjured testimony;10 extorted defendant brutal methods.11 Errors final12 though preserved original trial.13 79 think describe demonstrating fundamentally unfair. Since lawyer insufficient merit appeal,14 expect law; thereafter, teaching Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 2497, 594, undoubtedly destined where, safe predict, once come totally unproductive. 80 incorrect actually unfair postponing round completed outrageous. make guilty; innocent, languish jail pleading callous indeed. 81 situations refuse serious reasonably addressing ultimate Or evidentiary decide enables resolved followed. judges exercise presence inappropriate pleaded inflexible, mechanical adopts arbitrarily denies administer calendars effectively.15 82 recent years times lost sight office great corpus. quite unlike common-law enabled higher nisi prius tribunal civil criminal whenever detected. guarantee liberty.16 construed writs tantamount unfortunate consequences. First, encouraged file ever-increasing volume applications request adequately Second, led business creating dealing flood nonretroactivity, emerging "cause prejudice" doctrine, examples confining unfairness. 84 high met, retroactivity enforced. fashion definitions "cause" "prejudice" proceeding.17 primarily claim.18 85 crafts demeans Perhaps response requesting minor disputes. assumption groundless technical requirements mechanism reducing considered. experience taught lack merit, injustice corrected writ.19 honored. person's liberty stake, surely creation hurdles.20 86 Procedural regularity justice. niceties complicate disputes matter. former possible, latter. respectfully dissent. consecutive 120 nature charge. two, restricting alluded prejudiced State, 521 S.W.2d 591, 595-596 (1974). particular, improperly: misrepresented unethical interviewing trial; "testified" telling truth stand; method interview witnesses; (5) private interviewed counsel; (6) represented present, conduct inexcusable; (7) validly grievance Bar Association conduct; (8) objected (9) nature; (10) personal evaluation proof. concedes 4, contradiction (# 2) prosecutor, summation, 10). # occur front jury, objection cross-examination, labeled ordered discharged custody days initiated steps Circuits rule. 355-360 banc), Gonzales Stone, 546 807, 808-810 (CA9 1976). Katz King, 627 568, 574 1980); Cameron Fastoff, 543 971, 976 Trantino Hatrack, 563 86, 91-95 (CA3 1977), cert. denied, 435 928, 98 1499, 524 (1978); 1316, 1320 1969); Meeks Jago, 134, 137 (CA6 434 844, 145, 109 (1977); Brown Wisconsin Dept. Public Welfare, 457 257, 259 (CA7), 409 862, 150, 108 (1972); Tyler Swenson, 483 611, 614 1973); Whiteley Meacham, 416 36, (CA10 1969), rev'd grounds, 401 560, 91 1031, 306 (1971). Gooding Wilson, 405 518, 1103, 408 (1972), acknowledging control later, Francisco Gathright, 419 63-64, 259-260, 226 (1974) curiam), reserved "[a] clear, bar "afford adjudication contentions raised." 118, 450. Reviser's Notes appendix state: "This section [§ 2254] declaratory (See 1944, [64 448] 114 [88 572] )." 308, 80th Cong., 1st Sess., A180 (1947); Historical Revision following 2254. 210, 593, (1950) ("In 1948 recodification Code, Court"); Allen, 344 443, 447-450, 397, 402-403, 469 (1953); Fay Noia, 372 391, 434, 822, 846, 837 provides: "(b) behalf person pursuant shall absence corrective rendering ineffective prisoner. "(c) section, raise, presented." small comprehensive revision Code. version passed House, provided "[a]n legality detention Constitution laws States." H.R. 3214, Sess. (1947). Senate bill, changing form. accompanying bill "to substitute detailed 'no available.' should, therefore, spelled detail done amendment." S.Rep.No. 1559, 2d (1948). accepted Code 1966, add subsection (a) redesignate paragraphs subsections (c). Pub.L. 89-711, 2(c), Stat. 1105. Petitions Exhausted Unexhausted Claims: Speedy Release, Comity Efficiency, B.U.L.Rev. 864, 867, (1977) (suggesting contain multiple claims). Developments, Corpus, Harv.L.Rev. 1038, 1094 (cited favorably Doo 265 239, 524, 999 (1924), deportation order. contained pursued proceeding. "had offer proof" 525. controlled litigated Nonetheless, guidance situation reach offered 447, (1953), foreclose available; State. Additionally, (1973), force convicted, utilized procedures, satisfied attempting abort disrupt process. id., 491, (1967), intervening change mention warden—ensuring finality avoiding mooting depends, finality, adopt defendants time; adhere requirement, prejudice, 594 Murch Mottram, 41, 71, 194 (1972). continue challenging consolidation involving mooted grants though, saved trouble undertaking useless expansion 7. mentioned infra, promote constitute "an Irving Casscles, 448 741, 742 1971), 925, 1376, 586 1967), unable federal-court years. Henderson, 371 F.Supp. 1266 (SDNY 1974); 940 (CA2), 914, 189 warden insists, improved efficiency benefit contribute justice, contours relationship petition: remaining challenges, whereas frivolous, receive, hoped, prompt dissenting, typical follow extreme takes reasonable delayed 810 (1976). 361-362 (1978) banc). implies approval finding interrelatedness, 519, am convinced compelled. Conceivably, justified cumulative infected violate due rights. face, distinct conclusions depend. WHITE rejects page, 529. At questioned concerning "difficulties" her sister dating materiality inquiry, explained, "I material testified to." 17. excused admissibility evidence; inquiry "too removed relevant." 22. returned, disregard remarks. appeal. reciting events, "State's remarks overly zealous proof, error." 595 (Tenn.Crim.App.1974). ruled, undisputed doubt." Ibid. Defense cross-examined sexual activity. responded she remember activity, statements counsel. interview, disclosed told defendant. sustained objection. refer conversation victim. 13. claimed suggesting, acted unethically identifying involvement stating: "We note matter, predicating answers. tender proof deem restrictive ruling. affirmatively identify upcoming witness. misrepresentation, unduly critical indicating etc., case." S.W.2d, 596. argument, we've heard happened 8:15 night 16th o'clock morning 17th came witnesses." 27. jury: jurors exclusive credibility witnesses. You conflicts reconcile them, can, hastily rashly sworn falsely, truth." 31. full: "Since two. framework. However, collaterally." case"; nn. 2, "Each scrutinized viewed whole, isolated incident constitutes reversible Grunberger, 431 1062, 1069 1970). Socony-Vacuum Oil Co., 310 240, 811, 852, 1129 ("Of appeals passion prejudice poison minds strong deprived turns own facts. here, convinces aberrations prolonged ends justice"). generally belongs enforces prospectively retroactively, cf. Linkletter Walker, 381 618, 1731, 601, belied otherwise competent timely objection, Estelle Williams, 425 501, 508, 1691, 1695, 126; 95-97, 2510-2511, concurring). recognize apparent incongruity error—not constitutionally render argued, considerable force, ensure fairness worthy status. exists, demonstrated jurisprudence retroactive newly (exclusionary Mapp 367 643, 1684, 1081, retroactively); Tehan Shott, 382 406, 459, 453 (rule Griffin 609, 1229, 106, forbidding adverse testify); New Jersey, 384 719, 1772, 882 (guidelines custodial interrogation Escobedo Illinois, 378 478, 1758, 977, Miranda Arizona, 436, 1602, 694); Stovall Denno, 388 293, 1967, 1199 (rules pretrial identification procedures); DeStefano Woods, 392 631, 2093, 1308 (right contempts); Michigan Payne, 412 47, 736 Carolina Pearce, 711, 2072, 656, objective greater sentence imposed successful appeal). implicitly judgment; certainly magnitude remain unremedied. possible that—although trial—is typically vindicated remedies. 639, 1743; 415, 464; 298, 1970; 633, 2095. Whatever be, demonstrate expanded concept ensuring accused. point here attacks Moore Dempsey, 261 265, 543. Mooney Holohan, 294 103, 340, 791. Mississippi, 297 278, 461, 682 (direct DeMeerleer Michigan, 329 663, 596, 584; Marino Ragen, 332 561, 170. 95-96, 2511, Black noted 23, 705 infraction cited Payne Arkansas, 356 975 (coerced confession); Gideon 335, 792, 799 trial); Tumey 437, 749 (impartial judge). 27, 35-38, 75, prospective nothing instruct redraft pleadings black magic markers. today, disparages judges; obey lurks somewhere importantly, instant proceeding; similar outcome disagrees Given applicants, appraisals uncommon. uniqueness armory emphasized. differs detention. Of mean doors readily opened. exacted closed. boasting empty rhetoric freedom Anglo-American world. 'The centuries esteemed defence freedom.' Mr. Chief Chase, writing Yerger, Wall. 85, 95, 332. Its function unavailability totalitarian societies naturally regarded decisively differentiating democracy governments." 512, Frankfurter, J.). reliable indication qualified normally lawyer. searching record, attach any, manifest, wrestle granted. 94, 2510, separately analysis revealed Had joined default. pointed express grave. 837. client's participation decision, tactical basis. limiting less "lawmaking" engrafting 522, 529, 3065, 3069, 1067 (BRENNAN, dissenting). interesting unanimously 2255 'a defect inherently results miscarriage justice,' Timmreck, 441 780, 783, 99 2085, 2087, 634 (quoting Hill 368 424, 428, 468, 471, 417); Addonizio, 442 178, 185, 2235, 2240, 805, authorizes Davis 417 333, 343-344, 2298, 2303-2304, 109. identical, reasons persuaded limit cognizable "[t]his 572])." H.R.Rep.No.308, relatively few, exist narrow. late Palko Connecticut, 302 319, 328, 149, 153, 288, hardships "so acute shocking polity endure it"; 'fundamental principles lie base political institutions.' Hebert Louisiana, 272 312, 316, 104, 270). Schechtman Foster, 172 339, 341 1949), 924, 613, 1346, Learned Hand affirming denial intentional testimony, "[i]f [state] [claim] prima facie, deliberate presentation prosecution [petitioner] accorded measure [T]he issued erroneous judge's facie testimony." notions protections defendants. Nevertheless, remains current amendments to, modify, Respected scholars argue forcefully procedures stifled undiscriminating generalities. complexities federalism scheme interplay governments, limitations enforceable other, escaped simple, rigid which, abuses, generate 498, "[W]e consistently interpretations suffocate stifling formalisms hobble effectiveness manacles arcane scholastic requirements." Hensley Municipal 411 345, 350, 1571, 1574, 294. 563-570, 241-245 (Rutledge,

Category: 0