Court Opinion

ID: 9454751
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-04 18:57:58.153795+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:34:17.472950
License: Public Domain

LAY, Circuit Judge
(concurring opinion).
I concur in the majority opinion. However, I would reject the waiver issue for a different reason than stated.
A federal court cannot demand a more stringent compliance with state procedures than the state itself has required. The Supreme Court of Iowa has never held that Johnson has waived his right to raise the constitutional infirmity of the Iowa alibi rule. When the state has not held that a defendant has legally waived his procedural rights to raise a constitutional question, it is incumbent upon a federal court to pass directly on the merits of the constitutional question. See Warden, Md. Penitentiary v. Hayden, 387 U.S. 294, 297 n. 3, 87 S.Ct. 1642, 18 L.Ed.2d 782 (1967); Anders v. Turner, 379 F.2d 46 (4 Cir. 1967). The merits of the other issues have been decided by this court in Stump v. Bennett, 398 F.2d 111 (8 Cir. 1968).