Document: 534 U.S. 362122 S.Ct. 877151 L.Ed.2d 820 REMON LEE, PETITIONERv.MIKE KEMNA, SUPERINTENDENT, CROSSROADS CORRECTIONAL CENTER No. 00-6933. United States Supreme Court Argued October 29, 2001Decided January 22, 2002 Syllabus Petitioner Lee was tried for first-degree murder and a related crime in state court. His planned alibi defense--that he California with his family at the time of murder--surfaced each stage proceedings. Although Lees mother, stepfather, sister voluntarily came to Missouri testify alibi, they left courthouse without explanation some point on third day trial, defense case began. counsel moved an overnight continuance gain find witnesses enforce subpoenas had served them. Neither trial judge nor prosecutor identified any procedural flaw motions presentation or content. The denied motion, stating that it looked as though effect abandoned Lee, daughters hospitalization would prevent from being court next day, be unavailable following business because another scheduled. resumed pause, no testified, jury found guilty charged, sentenced prison life possibility parole. new grounded part denial denied, motion post-conviction relief, which argued, inter alia, refusal grant deprived him federal due process right defense. direct appeal relief were consolidated before Appeals, disposed grounds. appeals held proper failed comply Rule 24.09, requires such writing accompanied by affidavit, 24.10, sets out showings movant must make absence. Declining consider merits plea, Appeals affirmed conviction relief. He then filed habeas application, District denied. Eighth Circuit affirmed, ruling review claim courts rejection rested state-law grounds failure Rules 24.09 24.10 independent question adequate support judgment, Coleman v. Thompson, 501 722, 729. Held: Rules, injected into this appellate court, did not constitute bar review. Pp.1225. (a)Although violation firmly established regularly followed rules ordinarily bars review, there are exceptional cases exorbitant application generally sound rule renders ground inadequate stop consideration question. See Davis Wechsler, 263 24. This fits within limited category. is guided here Osborne Ohio, 495 U.S.103, 122-125. applied general principle objection ample timely bring alleged error attention enabling take appropriate corrective action, satisfies legitimate interests, therefore suffices preserve sequence events also guides Courts judgment. asserted oversights, failures fully first raised more than two half years after trial. asserted, work together enhance reliability determination whether delay scheduled criminal absence witness. Yet neither so much mentioned reason denying motion. If either done time, have opportunity perfect plea hold over until day. Instead, State argument its brief seems, 24.09s requirements own Pp.12-17. (b)Three considerations, combination, lead conclusion block adjudication claim. First, when stated could been countered continuance: said carry daughter hospital; further informed prevented concluding hypothesized proffered evidence supported supposition. Second, published decision directs flawless compliance unique circumstances sudden, unanticipated, unexplained disappearance critical, subpoenaed what became trials last Third most important, purpose submissions both immediately short As written requirement, does completely oral motions, transcript enabled comprehend situation quickly. components stressed State. first, never testimony expected missing witnesses, second, gave believe those located reasonable time. These matters, however, covered otherwise conspicuously apparent record. Thus, essential substantially met case, nothing gained requiring recapitulate rank order requires. See, e.g., Osborne, U.S., 124. remanded merits. Pp.1725. 213 F.3d 1037, vacated remanded. On writ certiorari united states eighth circuit Ginsburg, J., delivered opinion Court, Rehnquist, C.J., Stevens, O'Connor, Souter, Breyer, JJ., joined. Justice Ginsburg Court. 1 Remon asserts refused sought locate subpoenaed, previously present, but suddenly key against felony charges. ground. That defective under rules. It declined fair present Whether dispositive preclude corpus we decide. 2 convicted armed action. sole affirmative alibi; maintained California, staying family, Kansas City crimes indicted occurred. behalf. They sequestered start For reasons unknown, later their testimony. Discovering absence, morning endeavor three them back 3 defendant that, personal reasons, able [in day] try case. Furthermore, set weekday. App. 22. charged. 4 content continuance. relied upon even court: form, affidavit; witnesses. 5 We Caught midst un-alerted defect presentation, hardly divert proceedings rapidly unfolding courtroom train, instead, preparation affidavit. continuance, clear view information needed intelligently Beyond doubt, serves important interest regulating continuance--motions readily susceptible use delaying tactic. But petitioner having substantially, if imperfectly, made basic prescribes, qualifies federal, defend should depend formal ritual [that] perceivable interest. 124 (1990) (quoting James Kentucky, 466 341, 349 (1984) (in turn quoting Staub Baxley, 355 313, 320 (1958))) (internal quotation marks omitted). 6 * August 27, 1992, Reginald Rhodes shot killed Steven Shelby public street City, Missouri. jumped passenger side waiting truck, sped away. pleaded guilty, getaway driver, 7 took place span days February 1994. During voir dire court-appointed attorney prospective jurors [t]here will alibi. 10; see ibid. (And well put I cant go now somewhere else, couldn't commit give instruction my case.). Later dire, Gladys Edwards, sister, Laura minister. Id., 11-13. 8 figured prominently counsels opening statements prosecutor, close her statement, she disprove it. Tr. 187. Defense counsel, described detail, telling show engaged there, 1992. 12-13. Specifically, members visit Ventura, July 1992 stayed through end October. mother stepfather say picked up airport returned end. resided four children during All affirm saw throughout unbroken sojourn. Ibid. 9 prosecution eyewitnesses shooting driver. Williams, admitted cross-examination told taped interview Rhodes, 285. Williams given response misunderstood want bothered interviewer. 283, 287. second eyewitness, William Sanders, unable pick photographic array shooting; Sanders driver 18 months murder. 413-414. 10 Two other Rhonda Lynne Bryant, called prosecutor. Each testified knew seen night Both who asked where (the victim) was. 443487. offered physical connecting suggest motive. 11 began 10:25 a.m. final impeachment morning. Just noon, chambers charge conference. At meeting, apparently agreed submitted Lee. 571.1 12 late early afternoon, courthouse. one o'clock, stand outside presence and, record, responded questions concerning knowledge unanticipated 15. oath, Edwards traveled 16. representations uncle received him; similarly police officer, interviewed behalf 1618. 8:30 recess. 13 discovering call uncles house phone premises. girlfriend do so. 17. know whereabouts moment, fact didn't ministering Thursday Friday evenings. 18. couple hours [to] them, very valuable subsequently morning, 20. going hospital all [s]o I've got stay her. 14 After exchange between counsel,2 request. observed: 15 looks me folks defendant. And course, cant--we blame absolutely that. That's too bad. tomorrow 16 Counsel postponement Monday spend hospital). request too, noting 17 In colloquy courtroom, making judgment acquittal. asked, You're orally you'll supplement motion? agreed. 23. When returned, gone; further, why they've gone. 25. rested. closing argument, present. apologize, said, don't happened They're here. Couldn't on--on 26. commented same gap: Where [defense counsel] promised you opening[?] 27. 19 deliberating hours, counts. 43. 20 grounded, part, 31-32, 42. pro se represented appointed constitutional 56-59.3 unknown person, whom employee prosecutors office, testify. 56-58. law, allegedly improper category error, matter appeal, collateral challenge conviction. 70. 21 Appeals. Mo. Sup. Ct. 29.15(l) (1994). There, again urged continue 90-95. response, argued fatal flaw. 110-115. particular, contended (Rule 24.10), lists required based witnesses.4 By reckoning, materiality believing time; addition, urged, witnesse[s] procurement. 113. 22 935 S.W. 2d 689 (1996); 123-131. noted 24.09), provides applications shall 126-127.5 properly 24.09. 127. Even assuming adequacy continued, factual showing 24.10. unsatisfied. deficient abuse discretion. subsequent rehearing transfer 23 1998, proceeding se, Western 132. once challenged 147-152. appended affidavits swore alike while underway officer 168174.6 engineered departure; accordingly, prosecutorial misconduct, anything control, prompted need 148, 155-156. 24 writ. 980074CVW6P (WD Mo., Apr. 19, 1999), 212218. cognizable proceedings, held, 215 (citing 28 U.S.C. 2254(e) (1994 ed., Supp. V)). Federal went reject claim, finding invocation barring 217. 25 granted certificate appealability, rights violated allow id., 232, petition. 1037 (2000) (per curiam). unavailable, correctly observed, rest[ed] law regardless substantive procedural. 1038 729 (1991)). rejected [Rules] stated. concluded, procedurally defaulted. F.3d, 1038.7 26 Chief Judge Bennett, sitting designation Northern Iowa, dissented. view, supply particular 10411049. 27 petition certiorari, 531 1189 (2001), 532 956 (2001). vacate II presented [the state] rests (1991) (emphases added). applies equal force developed doctrine courts, deciding district address claims prisoners actions. [T]he assertion questions, recognized, prerogative finally decide; rather, itself Douglas Alabama, 380 415, 422 (1965). 29 brought bear depended way law. Nor applicability codified Rules. maintain Rules--addressed initially invoked only stage--are inadequate, extraordinary fair-opportunity-to-defend issue.8 30 Ordinarily, rules--for example, involved case--will foreclose 348 (1984); Ford Georgia, 498 411, 422424 (1991). There are, (1923) (Holmes, J.) (Whatever springes may endeavoring assert confers, rights, plainly reasonably made, defeated name local practice.). 31 Our analysis controlled U.S.103 (1990). considered Osborne's objections child pornography government prove elements crime: lewd exhibition scienter. 107, Ohio barred object contemporaneously judges charge, instruct convict conduct satisfied scienter lewdness elements. 107-108, 123; Crim. Proc. 30(A) (1989) (A party assign giving instructions unless objects thereto retires verdict, specifically objection.). 32 urge qualified preven[t] us reaching contention point. 123. proof applicable statute specified otherwise. 112-113, n.9, contemporaneous rule, ensuring preventing providing juries erroneous instructions. 33 With respect lewdness, reach[ed] different conclusion. position element dismiss overruled just judge, uncertain terms, 124, argument. charged line pretrial dismiss. Counsels reasserting unsuccessfully dismiss, deter our disposition Given events, explained, reach [second] pressed issue lawyer words, although doubt Criminal Procedure charges, nevertheless concluded atypical instance, serve 34 decision, added enable action sufficient 125 Douglas, omitted)). principle, unusual us--rapidly foreseen, responsible--similarly guide 35 dissent strives mightily distinguish Justices Kennedy Scalia joined, cannot convincingly. intricate discussion longer relevant section itself, crafts rationales sweeps away language design accommodate unnecessary tension rest analysis, post, 13. 36 attentive reading pages confirm, 123125, rely isolated opinion, 9, solidly holding questions. omitted) 422). 37 According discrete trained bases. views central unforeseeab[ility] limiting construction i.e., addition charge. Post, 10-11; 12. characteristically inventive. spoke predictability vel non construction; answered firm no. Tellingly, noted, criticism, indication unpredictable, flowed purposes exceptions Legislature. 113, n.10. 38 suggests enlightening Ohio's treatment over-breadth objections. 11-12. contends, stands proposition rejects challenge, lodge foreclosed truth, special-to-the-First Amendment requirement. Ibid.9 Rather, established, practice standard challenges (1989). paradigmatically illustrates, unassailable instances, governmental interest; rare circumstances, unyielding disserve 39 oversights maintains, Brief Respondent (footnote (emphasis Nevertheless, motion.10 supplementation necessary, likely alerted note, listing contemplates perfection: affidavit insufficient permit amended. 40 State, ripe merits, thought appeal. Appeals; then, form. (a [an] affidavit) motion.11 41 Three conclude falls small scintilla shred base supposition, 1040 (Bennett, dissenting).12 42 presents day.13 predicament, appears, confronted before. [A]lthough themselves] [have been] novel, [their] facts Sullivan Little Hunting Park, Inc., 396 229, 245 (1969) (Harlan, dissenting). 43 realities 13, complied Missouris Rule. asserted: Nothing drafting complying Rul[e] longhand seated courtroom. 30.14 edged position. stated: Im formality Oral Arg. 48. concession advised. motions; expressly authorized, consent adverse party, supra, 3, sum, drawn reached dissenter: [A]ny seasoned agree insistence discovery absent, bizarre inject Alice-in-Wonderland quality 1047. 44 Regarding prosecution, 89, summary. specify neglected stresses two: give; 31. 45 previewed outset three-day detailed statement 10-13; 123 (defense trial). prosecutions anticipate rebut 443-487. An taken conference less hour 5, n.1. indicating recognition witness mother. 6, n.2. 46 repeated references anticipated inconceivable anyone harbored about material, indeed indispensable, evident vicinity effectively substitute California. 24.10(a) (c) (movant sought, [w]hat affiant believes prove, person available facts). 47 Moreover, showed belief purpose. 24.10(b). ministe[r] evenings; provided address; attendance. 16-18. 48 Concerning diligence obtain testimony, 24.10(a), showed: appear trial; City; telephoned evening come day; room; Countering procurement defense, 24.10(d), went, 17-18. 49 like genre, undoubted legitimacy. designed arm reliably requirements, Few read reveal [N]othing [have] be[en] (a), (b), (c), (d) 124; cf. 319-320 (1958) (failure specific sections ordinance constitutionality entire interdependent). inescapable invoke substance right, form 351.15 50 critiques great length Henry Mississippi, 379 443 (1965), decision.16 69, protracted exercise prime example dissents vigorous attack imaginary bears scant, any, resemblance actual rendered today. chart course. merely apply reasoning shrill prediction today's disrupt system accurate, signals disruption eleven since Osborne. dim distress demonstrates tight contours groundlessness frantic forecast doom. Travers, 514 F.2d 1171, 1174 (CA2 1974) (Friendly, (Cassandra-like predictions sure breadth majority's ruling). 51 questioned, moreover, dissent, test, embrace theory evaluate 69. holds, left. beyond functionary go, saying 10, n.6, lose approach. result unaffected acted instigation 6. mind how egregious, ignored long Rule, mine run rules, 52 To summarize, reference whatever purported impediments pressed. formally changed decision. demands unmodified urgent presented. Finally, Under special combined, hinders claim.17 53 Because barred, addressed remand National Collegiate Athletic Assn. Smith, 525 459, 470 (1999) (We decide instance issues decided below.). 54 55 stated, vacated, consistent opinion. 56 ordered. 57 Kennedy, dissenting Thomas, Notes: delivering proposed instruction. interrupted reminded necessary. 594595. Responding copies subpoenas. 2021. describe listed [i]s mother? 21. procedure file sentencing shortly notice 29.15(b) (1994) (requiring filing considering appeal). suspended 29.15(l). reads: 58 Misdemeanors Felonies--Application Continuance Account Absence Witnesses Shall Show What account show: 59 (a) obtained applicant testimony; 60 (b) residence witness, known, or, same, attendance procured 61 knows whose can facts; 62 absent connivance, consent, applicant, vexation delay, good faith obtaining impartial Continuance--How Made credible setting forth based, consents orally. accounts departure follows: Lee: [T]hose people leave 169. Edwards: state[]s remainder [o]ur . [u]s worry, [w]e testify, statements, So 172. [W]hile [c]ourthouse, excused then. 174. excuse lapse, suggesting follow ineffective assistance counsel. exhausted responded, 1038. ruled, innocence escape basis [alibi witness] relies existed earlier. 1039. argues footnotes fails namely, 16, n.2, 32, n. 7. urges, explicitly guaranteed Fifth, Sixth, Fourteenth Amendments. Reply 11, n.4 8687, 9095). advance current opposition certiorari. discretion deem [alleged] waived. Oklahoma Tuttle, 471 808, 816 (1985). point, Part III, cites First decision; solely decisions contexts. 103, 122125 (1923); 421422 (1965)). contrast, directed acquittal 67. belated these explains contend constitutionally failing meticulously entry proceeded 7, 3. caused collaps[e] altogether. record refutes suggestion. it: statement--given prior counsels--outlined rebuttal 178187. Likewise, reserve prepared 17, known sentence unrelated case--a thoughts testifying, 16a month 2526. Utterly confounding depictions capped [b]efore careful representation believed still offer insists, produced thing motion: assurance material 13; No immediacy sudden disappearance, demand impossible. unexplained, explained afternoon disappearance. [Lees] five examples enforcement (or predecessors) exigency. are: Gadwood, 342 466, 479, 116 S. W. 42, (1937) (defendants knew, likelihood inability trial); Cuckovich, 485 (Mo. 1972) (en banc) (defendant arrived letter doctor explaining ill); Scott, 487 528, 530 (absent subpoenaed); Settle, 670 1314 1984) (deficient six Freeman, 702 869, 874 1985) serving subpoena appear). distinguishable; none ground, applying precise bar. here, strict Lees. requirement notarized. indulging hyperbole, describes narrow comb searc[h] lower courts. 9. hold, simply only, 24.10s 1415, burden rummage ponderous search lapse. tilts windmill invention. has radical, R. Fallon, D. Meltzer, & Shapiro, Hart Wechslers System 584 (4th ed. 1996)), pursuing approach, states, anterior cured procedure. 584585. Henry, indicated admission derived unconstitutional search, verdict substitute. 448449. sort designate enunciate again, supporting repeatedly 35. repetition interest, controls. disposition, shown cause prejudice default, Wainwright Sykes, 433 72, 9091 (1977), Schlup Delo, 513 298, 315 (1995), warrant hearing kind ordered 63 Thomas join, dissenting. 64 commits unwise Its contextual approach places unwarranted responsibilities judges, injects troubling instability justice system, reaches wrong considerations prompt respectful dissent. 65 always federalism, 726 (1991), respects discriminate rights. originated existence deprives jurisdiction. force, albeit somewhat ignoring defaults circumvent jurisdictional limits undermine enforcing laws. 731. 66 comity deemed force[s] resort arid meaningless (1958). Staub's formulation imprecise, clarified inquiry: rule; enforcement. 67 determine withstand scrutiny test (or, matter, it, infra, 19). assumed, sake afford defendants raise latter requesting explain needed, facilitating orderly management trials. Other similar requirements. Ind. Code 353671(b) (1993); La. Ann., Art. 709 (West 1981); Miss. Ann. 991529 (1972); Okla. Stat., Tit. 12, 668 S.C. 7(b) (1990); Tex. 29.06 (Vernon 1965); Vt. 50(c)(1) (1983); Wash. Rev. 10.46.080 explicit deprecation 24.10and implicit many counterparts inconsistent 68 initial step inquiry considers litigants rule. disregard procedures followed. 346 (1984), closely hewn to; NAACP Alabama ex rel. Patterson, 357 449, 457 (1958), fairly apprised rules] existence. majority acknowledges, ante, category, unlike practices regular practice. 69 Several seem lack directing presents. Ante, 19. While description dubious, see, 1972), underlying, quite novel ignores nature rule-making. means says few rise Almost every foreseen articulated decisions, eliminate second-guessing cases. plain admits exception, establishing judge-made exemption these. clear. 70 ventures territory implying cite meaningful, 2, 1617, 24, significant, previous uncited defect. 343344; 317318. None used rationale reason. require onerous burdens settled tribunal Smith Phillips, 455 209, 215, n.6 (1982). Here, permi[t] pass Robinson, 864 347, 1993), facilitate errors. Notwithstanding guess inner completeness tells consequential might effect, showing. 71 appears recognize much. relates question, rather inquiry, asks errs. B 72 A 349; Michigan Tyler, 436 499, 512, n.7 (1978). Most various aside appeared calculated treatise puts 16B C. Wright, A. Miller, E. Cooper, Practice Procedure, 4027, p.392 (2d 1996) (hereinafter Wright Miller). 422423 (1965) (rule continuous identical objections); 317318 individual statute); waiving appearance successor-in-interest). 73 light standard, demonstrated. Delays distinct reproach administration justice, Powell 287 45, (1932), strong continuances anticipates certain points available. makes demonstrating real difference 74 must, deny legitimacy arm[ing] word final. Elmendorf Taylor, Wheat. 152, 159160 (1825) (Marshall, C.J.). acceptance premises 75 deems default because, says, extent feasible terms jurisprudence before, necessary explore implications. general, full so, devices, stand. procedures, contain. 1922. viewed, substantial-compliance terminology begins look familiar: paraphrases flawed analytical ratified 76 Before focused overlooking 422423; troubling, criticized, as-applied factor equation. Weschslers's Wechsler) (calling radical); Miller 4028, 394 (arguing Henry's approach--under accomplish forfeiture court--unduly subordinates interests); (There inadequate). defaulted Fourth contested evidence. Despite conceding common state-court proposing petitioners asking verdict. 448. suggestion, when, peculiar utilized 77 possessed mischievous potential, lacked significant precedential effect. inadequate; instead deliberately bypassed 449453. cornerstone deliberate-bypass Fay Noia, 372 391, 426434 (1963), 8788 750. Subsequent pre-Henry focus validity practice, declining framing innocuous terms. Monger Florida, 405 958 Wechsler 585586 (describing [d]emise Henry); 4020, 291 (Later period measured decades, remarkable frequently omitting clarifying it). 78 meaningful distinction today, surprising reinvigoration case-by-case contrary principles federalism underlying jurisprudence. Procedural laws implement, products sovereignty democratic processes. weighty interests protect integrity uniformity trials, clearly apply. 333 (Frankfurter, Regardless cases, freestanding 79 invites mischief imposed heavy. rulemaker's fulfill purposes; imperfect thus, definition, all. matters overridden understanding purposes, substantial Henceforth, litigant procedure, inquire, noncompliance alternative situation. 585. end, numerous instances searching ways broken 80 seeks renewal long-quiescent dictum recent 122125. Though approach--or, approach--Osborne's not. 81 little resemblance, possess photograph minor nudity. 2907.323(A)(3) (Supp. 1989). objected overbroad Amendment. allowed proceed, adopted instructed crime. 82 reasons: prohibited possession non-lewd material; rejecting contention, not: nudity constitute[d] involve[d] graphic genitals. Young, St. 3d 249, 252, N.E. 1363, 1368 (1988). addressing mens rea recklessness whenever, silent 252253, 2d, 2901.21(B) (1987)). statute. grounds, observing requested charge[s] given. 3d, 254, 258, 1369, 1373 (1989)). 83 parties process, supreme adds save affirms Appellant, O.T. 1989, 885986, p.25. contending foreseeable, short, conclusory paragraph. Appellee, pp.4344. Against backdrop, assessment 125126. watershed be. steps, comported principles. 84 primary was, insisted mirroring unforeseeable devise. exhibit prescience, placed unreasonable Shuttlesworth Birmingham, 147, 155157 (1969); 118 ([W]here narrows unconstitutionally statute, ensure construed originally written). might, guessed obscenity mere genitals additional option; yet according preserved foreseeability concern found, cited state[d] one, mental state. foreseeable (and statute), 85 faulted raising instructions, 420423. repeat, Confrontation Clause co-defendants confession jury. sustained. 86 concerns. objection--at made--the assumption materials offense. Any introduced establish photographs irrelevant, objectionable logical practical close. nonetheless enlightening. argue supplied element, precluded admitting 87 thus predict holding, relevance hand. foresee unforeseeable, granting tailored concerns, adopt fact-specific regard extraordinary. suggestion exaggerates importance employed note mandated whereby constructions rulings. brevity, 123124, fleeting analysis. dictated result, 88 lay groundwork revival Mississippi. sense basis, Erroneous regime endorsed assumption--that one--ignores predicate 89 contends compensated inadequacies inadvertence, remarks observations earlier parts conclusion, construe pronounced liberality. assume, th[e] served, 448, majority, met, critical requires--[W]hat prove--was revealed stages: perhaps, speculates, assume objectives. 90 placing memory statements. Cf. Ungar Sarafite, 376 575, 589 (1964) (test determining particularly denied). past corresponding single posture far recalled details (as believes, 21), pronounced. 91 indicates, considerable degree skepticism. different, suspected returned. contrary, idea expect. 92 capable distinguishing brave promises stages deliver sought. lawyers using hyperbole documented arguments requests Trial daily basis. jury: 93 old man, years, Never weak this. 618. 94 Quite predictable response--he 620--the rhetoric ill fit routine, mechanical acquittal, complete consisting following: 95 MR. McMULLIN: Ill office. There's defendant--that move sustain easily of. 489. 96 customary dynamics perhaps; whole course confirm case: lot what's statement. 173. Opening sometimes oppositions hand shape perception events. 97 faced obstacles Indeed, inference collapsed connection automobile passenger-gunman. difficulties identification room dispelled prosecution. chances mistaken identity minimal. City--not California--on town, shooter looking victim. 98 Faced adduced elected open supposed attempted refute aspect eyewitnesses. Only attend birthday return hoped opening. 99 reported missing, testifying. speaking lawyer. persons all, assault robbery, perjury inducement risk--a risk testified--if term event. skepticism seems justified weeks later, gone amended family's 100 Avery 308 444, 446 (1940) (propriety Amendment, conditions existing). him, difficult make, credit avoid representation. said: 101 they're liars You yourself. 102 guarded advertised: 103 THE COURT: floor courthouse, Well 104 in--although despite subpoena. 105 Judge. know. would--I deny. 106 one--not attorney--stood expressed belief, Without assurance, use. 107 bode federalism. 108 therefrom, 9091, compelling innocence, 314315 (1995). neither. 109 neglect sense, though, unavailing. component cause-and-prejudice but-for causal relationship default. show, external impeded efforts Murray Carrier, 477 478, 488 (1986). surprise requirement), quick exit stopped materiality. 110 evidentiary probably resulted actually innocent. 496. fall class McCleskey Zant, 499 467, 494 demonstrate juror 327, 314315. sister; almost eight tangible corroborating story flown 4-month acquit, overlook problem, ignore relatives motive concoct kin, discount vote convict. 111 112 Flying banners raises storm disquieting nature. wrote Harlan, 457. predicted spread, heeding admonition, refrained prescribed. disclaims reliance revived discredited rationale. Serious cast convictions sustained 113 Sound result.

Category: 8