Document: 425 U.S. 536 96 S.Ct. 1708 48 L.Ed.2d 149 Abraham FRANCIS, Petitioner,v.C. Murray HENDERSON, Warden. No. 74-5808. Argued Dec. 9-10, 1975. Decided May 3, 1976. 003 Syllabus Six years after his conviction for felony murder from which he took no appeal, petitioner sought collateral relief the state court on ground, Inter alia, that Negroes had been excluded grand jury indicted him. Relief was denied ground petitioner's failure to raise claim before trial constituted a waiver of under law. Petitioner then habeas corpus in District Court, granted relief. The Court Appeals reversed, relying Davis v. United States, 411 233, 93 1577, 36 216, held federal prisoner who failed timely challenge allegedly unconstitutional composition him could not attack jury's an action Held : correctly rule, requires only showing "cause" defendant's compositi trial, but also actual prejudice, applies with equal force when is asked proceeding overturn state-court because indictment. Louisiana time limitation designed serve same important purposes sound judicial administration as were stressed Davis, supra, at 241, 1582, 224, and considerations comity federalism require those be accorded less recognition than it Pp. 538-542. 5 Cir., 496 F.2d 896, affirmed. Bruce S. Rogow, Fort Lauderdale, Fla., petitioner. Mr. Justice STEWART delivered opinion Court. 1 In make 28 U.S.C. § 2255. question this case whether bring proceeding. 2 petitioner, Francis, brought 1965 upon indictment murder. He represented by counsel provided State. law clearly required any objection defendant made advance trial. Otherwise, provided, "all such objections shall considered waived afterwards urged or heard."1 No objectionn form behalf Francis. At ensuing found Francis guilty, sentenced life imprisonment. 3 did appeal conviction, 1971 law, accordingly thereafter writ States Eastern Louisiana. impermissibly returned indictment.2 reversed judgment, holding light Court's decision case, "the provision must given effect district courts unless there prejudice." 899. Accordingly, appellate remanded We certiorari order consider recurring unresolved 421 946, 95 1674, 44 993. 4 There can court's power entertain application this. §§ 2241, 2254. issue, goes rather appropriate exercise power. has long recognized some circumstances concerns orderly criminal justice forgo its See Fay Noia, 372 391, 425-426, 83 822, 841-842, 9 837, 860-861. decided are invoke concerns. charge attempted bank robbery. Federal Rule Crim. Proc. 12 provides wants constitutional validity do so motion trial; otherwise deemed have challenge, except "cause shown."4 motion. Almost three 2255 set aside discrimination against should these denied, said: 6 "We think inconceivable Congress, having foreclosed raising commencement absence 'cause' waiver, nonetheless intended perversely negate Rule's purpose permitting entirely different much more liberal requirement proceedings. believe necessary congressional adoption 12(b)(2) provide once pursuant may later resurrected, either proceedings habeas, requires. therefore hold standard expressed 12(b) (2) governs untimely discrimination, during proceeding, review." U.S., 242, S.Ct., L.Ed.2d, 224. 7 Shotwell Mfg. Co. 371 341, 361-364, 448, 460-462, 357, 371-373. 8 As pointed out, contained serves interests far significant mere convenience: "The provisions operative respect claims defects institution If limits followed, inquiry into alleged defect concluded and, if necessary, cured court, witnesses, parties gone burden expense defendants allowed flout limitations, other hand, would little incentive comply terms successful might simply result new prior Strong tactical militate favor delaying hopes acquittal, thought materialize, used upset valid reprosecution well difficult." 10 applicable present obviously precisely purposes, specifically 20 ago involving very Michel Louisiana, 350 91, 76 158, 100 L.Ed. 83. 11 "It beyond Due Process Clause Fourteenth Amendment attach reasonable limitations assertion rights. More particularly, State prompt right discriminatory practices make-up jury." Id., 97, 162, L.Ed., 91 (footnote omitted). "Not determination preliminary matters avoid necessity second delay determination, here, makes extremely difficult class overcome prima facie established defendant. Material witnesses jurors die leave jurisdiction, memories intent specific relating selection particular lose their sharpness. Furthermore, sat several earlier affect convictions based indictments 98 n. 5, 163, 91. 13 If, held, give legitimate proceedings, surely they clear convictions. Those "to both National Governments, . (that) Government, anxious though vindicate protect rights interests, always (endeavor) ways will unduly interfere activities States." Younger Harris, 401 37, 44, 746, 750, 27 669, 676. "Plainly interest finality ishe regard prisoners. reason greater preclusive procedural defaults similar defendants. To reflect anomalous erroneous view federal-state relations." Kaufman 394 217, 228, 89 1068, 1075, 22 227, 238. 14 conclude, therefore, correct rule indictment.5 requires, contrary assertion, prejudice.6 judgment 15 It ordered. 16 Judgment 17 Affirmed. 18 MARSHALL part case. 19 STEVENS consideration BRENNAN, dissenting. 21 I dissent. 837 (1963), attentive solemn constitutionalty preserve intact sanctity Great Writ ensure "federal personal liberty without fullest opportunity plenary review," 424, 841, 860. unjustified restriction imposed today jurisdiction betrays promise. call mind what said Fay. principle reaffirmed Henry Mississippi, 379 443, 452, 85 564, 569, 408, 415 (1965), last Term Lefkowitz Newsome, 420 283, 290 6, 886, 890, 43 196, 202 (1975), "even grounds adequate bar direct review available litigate deliberate bypass procedures." Ibid. (emphasis supplied); 428-434, 438-439, 843-846, 848-849, 862-866, 869-870. also, e. g., Camp Arkansas, 404 69, 92 307, 30 223 (1971). acknowledged "orderly procedure desideratum, course sanctions flouting procedure. But 'competes ideal (the) fair procedure.' " 431, 845, 864. rejected legitimacy "state airtight system forfeitures," 432, 865, explicitly addressed extent review, determined "deliberate bypass" equivalent "knowing intelligent" Johnson Zerbst, 304 458, 58 1019, 82 1461 (1938): 23 fully grant exigencies warrant whereby judge discretion deny one Deliberately subvert evade adjudication defenses courts. Surely stricter realistic necessity. 544¢sbecause inadvertence neglect runs afoul requirement, thereby forfeits remedies, collateral, thereof consequences sufficient State's Whatever residuum manifestly insufficient face policy, drawn ancient principles corpus, embodied Constitution Judicial Code, consistently upheld affording effective remedy restraints Constitution. 24 "Although we affected incurred applicant recognize Limited certain circumstances. Narrowly circumscribed, conformity historical role imperative detentions fundamental unexceptionable. deliberately by-passed doing forfeited remedies. 25 "But wish interpreted permission introduce legal fictions corpus. Classic definition enunciated 464, 1023, 1461, 1466 'an intentional relinquishment abandonment known privilege' furnishes controlling standard. applicant, consultation competent otherwi, Understandingly knowingly forewent privilege seeking courts, strategic, tactical, reasons fairly described by-passing procedures, open all refused merits satisfied itself, hearing means, facts bearing applicant's default. Cf. Price Johnston, 334 266, 291, 68 1049, 1063, 1356. events understood here put forth depends choice A participated does automatically Nor finding independent affecting question." 433-434, 846, 868-869 supplied). 26 Despite Fay'S unqualified default Only bypassed now rejects context jury.1 Sce neither addresses applicability situation nor effort distinguish within specified rules situations take manner introduction unconstitutionally seized evidence, object prosecutor's comments testify cf., E. Fay; 227 (1969); portends two inevitable overruling denigration constitutionally composed jury. isolated instance infidelity teaching Fay, seen simple aberration. particularly distressing decisions Estelle Williams, 501, 1691, 126, where exposes hostility towards substantial inroads precedential thout directly confronting underlying premises, continuing validity, possibility distinguishing Such "oversights" especially ironical recent admonition "(o)ur institutional duty follow until changed is, members be." Hudgens NLRB, 424 507, 518, 1029, 1036, 47 196 (1976). believes longer good "institutional duty" develop explicate reasoned consistent manner, squarely our cases interpreting statutes honestly reasons, any, altered perceptions jurisdiction. I, one, relish prospect being informed Terms overruled Term, never comes grips statutory policy underpinning adhere precedents establishing that, absent cannot justify withholding convicted derogation rights; shares view, evident say forthrightly explain why applied arising Today's notably deficient respect. After properly conceding "(t)here this," Ante, 538, notes 216 (1973), sustained Fed.Rule (2), interject untimelchallenge 539-540. asserts "considerations (the courts) (deemed sustain 2255)," 541, indictment." 542. Finally, concludes applying "equal force" means show "actual prejudice" resulting rule. 29 analysis glaring. my Brother Marshall out dissent see 245-257, 1584-1590, 226-233, justifiable basis there. still concur reasoning dissent, repeat arguments here. fundamentally emphasized least notion Congress availability prisoners governed govern itself. 241-243, 1582-1583, 224-225.2 fail comprehend how federasm" vague concepts content circumscribe scope congressionally considerations, ultimate arbiters rights, most postponement, abnegation, 2254 factors "without concern often sufficiently sensitive need significance Writ, 399-435, 827-847, 845-866 discretionary petitioners deprived confined narrow category adjudicated knowing, intelligent, bypassing procedures. 868-869. "Surely necessity." 433, 865. Yet invoking "comity federalism," essentially preclude assert period; absolute automatic "waiver" apparently knew "untimely" nevertheless merits, incompetence accounted challenge. conceive pervasive repudiation responsibility safeguard precious process enshrined support proposition gleaned cited 669 541-542. That strictly cabined concept federalism" salutary dictate defer, initial matter, (a reflected exhaust remedies relief), inapposite denying accused immunized unintentional unfortunately, yet another example current trend loosing princip original moorings converting doctrine Timing Precluding adjudication. See, Rizzo Goode, 423 362, 598, 46 561 (1976); 126. increasingly talismanic use phrase itself devoid sense determining timing ominous portent; look excuse fashioned stripping conferred Congress. Moreover, even carve exception juries apply "with 2255, inexplicable conclusion untimeliness 542.3 This ipse dixit, baldly asserted penultimate sentence slightest veneer shield obvious fiat reached result, hardly qualifies craftsmahip. peradventure, sad disservice obligation elaborate rationales arriving 31 Indeed, apparent challenges juries4 unexplained imposition prejudic' egregious salient studiously avoids noting. Petitioner, 17-year-old black youth, Orleans Parish when, robbery white couple perpetrated males, robbers killed. first anyone recall novel charge, death penalty confederates deceased, Parish. 32 Two months later, appointed uncompensated During period counsel, failing health practiced years, defense. Not day file motions capital filed elementary bill particulars, quash vagueness grounds, discovery production copies confessions police while unrepresented. fact possible On one-day exclude statements hearing. imprisonment, older accomplices, plea bargaining pled each received 8-year prison terms.5 33 Althgh pursued blacks disproportionately idea challenging array, limit making (under statute fashion waived) expired. Supreme combined petition petitioned 34 jury, chosen Jury Commission intentionally systematically daily wage earners, disproportionate number impartial representing cross-section community. (1938), noted although relinquished abandoned response contention precluded assuming, Arguendo, issue constitute shown sustaining Davis—to conduct counsel.6 35 Given facts, looms oppressive. composed, intelligently proper procedures adjudicating allegations, thus meeting Fay's prerequisites test "waiver." recognizing hurdles protest dictated erects furthehurdle path; minimum, owes Some explanation additional burden. addition supply justifications fails it. One suspects able demonstrate "actual" intends mean prove, standard, crime met standards. Fifth Circuit's hypothetical coparticipants white, indict them. Of course, seldom eventuate, whose black, ever 37 seem impose "prejudice" racial bias shown, deprivation harmless error have, doubt, offense allow For utmost importance concerning undisputed, pivotal invocation rare factual laden overtones. perform "historic function" peculiarly crime, see, Calandra, 414 338, 342-344, 94 613, 617-618, 38 561, 568-569 (1974), society best served prosecuting, conduct, "terrified" youth carrying sanction punishment, incomprehensible suggest federally secured inappropriate federalism." reverse remand direction reinstate dated September 20, 1973, modified however postpone execution release afford date entry reinstated try Francis' Art. Code Criminal Procedure (1928) raised expiration third following end term whichever earlier. Wilson, 204 La. 24, So.2d 873; Chianelli, 226 552, 727. days (or obtained). La.Code Crim.Proc.Ann. 535(B)(3) (1967). While practice followed excluding earners service operated Negroes. left previous cases. 242-243, 224-225; Parker North Carolina, 397 790, 798, 90 1458, 1462, 785, 792. Before December 1, 1975, paragraph (b)(2) 12. paragraphs (f) Rule. declined prisoner's claim, would, applicable. 196. 244-245, 1583-1584, 225-226. presumption prejudice supports existence inconsistent obtain statutorily manner." 245, 1584, 226. Although Amendment's presentment extended Hurtado California, 110 516, 111, 292, 232, 239 (1884), proceeds "For over Negro stand Equal Protection race. Strauder West Virginia, 303, 664 (1880); Neal Delaware, 103 370, 567 (1881). demand race included indicts him, Virginia Rives, 313 (1880), entitled participate justice. Ex parte 339, 676 Gibson 162 565, 904, 40 1075 (1896). Hernandez Texas, 347 475, 74 667, 866 (1954)." Alexander 405 625, 628-629, 1221, 1224, 536, 540 (1972). Peters Kiff, 407 493, 2163, (1972); Sims Georgia, 389 404, 88 523, 634 (1967); Whitus 385 545, 87 643, 599 Arnold 376 773, 84 1032, 77 (1964); Eubanks 356 584, 78 970, 991 (1958); Smith 311 128, 61 164, (1940). dimensions problem, certainly Davis. "(W)aiver 439, 849, 869 (1963). matter consti- tutional substantive (for example, speedy trial) lost defendant, (1938); Barker Wingo, 514, 525-529, 2182, 2189-2191, 101, 113-116 Schneckloth Bustamonte, 412 218, 235-246, 276-277, 2041, 2051-2057, 2072-2073, 854, 867-874, 891-892 fathom Vel non way dilute passed indigency arrest legitimately conclude Similarly, bound actions acted client's behalf. 408 (1965). symmetry between forfeiture compliance preserved adopted analogue Zerbst knowing-and-intelligent-waiver by-pass measuring defaults. 869. 4, Infra. am puzzled statement Require petitions ante, 541 thing whatever unarticulated underlies today's decision, obtained rendered However, since understand legislatively overrule circumstances, plainly refuse enforce mandate own notions holding. 542 n.6. analyzing 12(b)(2), affirmed ruling method employed overtones Government's strong. 235-236, 243-244, 1579-1580, 220-221, These factors, evaluating "cause," related "prejudice." True, taken account relief, permissible. 244, 1583, 225. demonstrating (1972), presumed composition, mandated demonstrated establish "cause." context, quoted today, alone meaning 12(b)(2). Thus, implication justifies Certainly suggesting flexible shown" similarly contracted judges read stop short across board attachment consequence involved. comport unfortunate diluting standards accomplished. 854 (1973). Many quotations appear indicate conceives securing waivers somehow Perhaps "harmless error" belief. articulate perceived bases differentiation. merely passing numerous requiring times, eviscerate intelligent waiver" prove every element proof doubt. be, however, rejecting ordinarily personally 513, S.Ct ., 1697, 136 (Powell, J., concurring). again, address inform us "trial-type" lawyer. embarking program bind concrete Sixth guarantee assistance actually constitutes "within range competence demanded attorneys cases." McMann Richardson, 759, 771, 1441, 1449, 763, 773 (1970); Tollett Henderson, 258, 1602, 1607, 235, 242 (1973); 234 1578, 220. defendants' controlled counsel's exacting scrutiny full made. indication record prohibited guilty minor manslaughter, App. 29, appears event unwilling plea-bargain Ibid.: "Q. Was man didn't plead Francis? "A. Sure, reason, electric chair." vacated agreed satisfy "that civil lawyer, unskilled intricacies practice, had, inexperience, pass objecting composition." 897-898 (CA5 1974). analysis, base prescribed more, "absent petitioner." 897.

Category: 0