Court Opinion

ID: 9470377
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:04:12.470207+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:41:51.957044
License: Public Domain

SETH, Chief Judge,
concurring:
I concur in the result reached by the majority, but would apply Wainwright to the issues included in the petition before us but which were not raised in petitioner’s direct appeal.
The majority clearly describes the choice between Wainwright and Fay v. Noia. My only departure is that the issues not raised on the state appeal are to be matters within the control and discretion of the attorney as in Wainwright and who may wish to save them for another day as a matter of strategy, with consideration of the interrelationship of the several issues and the effective presentation of selected issues or other reasons. In any event, the context is the same as for the issue considered in Wainwright, and the decision, together with Rose v. Lun-dy, 455 U.S. 509, 102 S.Ct. 1198, 71 L.Ed.2d 379, and United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152,102 S.Ct. 1584, 71 L.Ed.2d 816, suggests that we should apply to appeals in the state courts the statement there made:
“There is nothing in the Constitution or in the language of § 2254 which requires that the state trial on the issue of guilt or innocence be devoted largely to the testimony of fact witnesses directed to the elements of the state crime, while only later will there occur in a federal habeas hearing a full airing of the federal constitutional claims which were not raised in the state proceedings. If a criminal defendant thinks that an action of the state trial court is about to deprive him of a federal constitutional right there is every reason for his following state procedure in making known his objection.
“The ‘cause’-and-‘prejudice’ exception of the Francis rule will afford an adequate guarantee . ... ”
The concurring opinions of Justices Burger and Stevens to me also indicate the application of Wainwright should be made.