Court Opinion

ID: 9488875
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 12:58:04.860619+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:53:09.411207
License: Public Domain

JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
with whom
McMILLIAN, Circuit Judge, joins, dissenting.
I respectfully dissent.
It must first be said that the court today decides a completely different case than was decided by the panel.
The Court flies in the face of long-standing precedents of this circuit to reach its result, and in doing so, severely tilts the playing field against Abdullah. It denies Abdullah relief because he did not tell the Missouri Court of Appeals clearly enough what legal theory underlay his objection. Astonishingly, the Court accepts a theory that the State of Missouri did not raise until its motion for rehearing.
The State argued before the panel that Abdullah committed procedural default at trial by his failure to object to the shackling, and the Missouri Court of Appeals plain error review did not waive the trial default. We read the State’s brief as conceding that Abdullah adequately raised the shackling issue before the Missouri Court of Appeals:
*414[Abdullah] had failed to object at trial to the trial judge’s ruling of which he sought to complain in federal habeas corpus. [The State] recognized that [Abdullah] had sought to raise this grievance on direct appeal, but also reported that the Missouri Court of Appeals had held that because the grievance was not preserved for appeal, it could be considered only under the “plain error” standard. (Citations omitted).
For the first time, in its motion for rehearing, the State substituted a new legal theory based on Abdullah’s procedural default in the Missouri Court of Appeals and abandoned its earlier theory about Abdullah’s procedural default at trial.
If a party fails to raise or discuss an issue on appeal, we deem him to have abandoned the issue. Burnette Techno-Metrics, Inc. v. TSI Inc., 44 F.3d 641, 642 n. 2 (8th Cir.1994); Jasperson v. Purolator Courier Corp., 765 F.2d 736, 740 (8th Cir.1985); Pedicord v. Swenson, 431 F.2d 92, 93 (8th Cir.1970). It is too late to raise new arguments on motion for rehearing. See Jamestown Farmers Elevator, Inc. v. General Mills, Inc., 552 F.2d 1285, 1296 (8th Cir.1977); see also Wiener v. Eastern Arkansas Planting Co., 975 F.2d 1350, 1357 n. 6 (8th Cir.1992) (arguments must ordinarily be raised in party’s opening brief, rather than reply); Harstad v. First American Bank, 39 F.3d 898, 905 (8th Cir. 1994) (party cannot raise arguments for first time in Fed.Rule App.P. 28(j) letter); 9 James Wm. Moore and Bernard J. Ward, Moore’s Federal Practice ¶ 228.02[2] and n. 7 (2d ed. 1995).
Today the court turns its back on that long settled precedent. There are, of course, situations in which we permit an argument to be raised late or even raise it sua sponte. For instance, appellate courts sometimes raise legal questions sua sponte to avoid garbling the law. See United States Nat’l Bank of Oregon v. Independent Ins. Agents, 508 U.S. 439,---, 113 S.Ct. 2173, 2178-79, 124 L.Ed.2d 402 (1993). However, this is not a case where the Court corrects the parties’ erroneous statements of the law.
The state did not assert before the panel that Abdullah was in procedural default in his briefs and argument before the Missouri Court of Appeals. Procedural default is waivable. See Vick v. Lockhart, 952 F.2d 999, 1002 n. 2 (8th Cir.1991); Wealot v. Armontrout, 948 F.2d 497, 499 (8th Cir.1991); 2 James S. Liebman and Randy Hertz, Federal Habeas Corpus Practice and Procedure § 26.2 ¶ a (2d ed. 1994). Failure to assert this theory waives the State’s rights, just as a defendant’s failure to object to error at trial can prejudice his rights. The court allows the State to unwaive a waivable and, indeed, a waived defense.
We have implied that we would perhaps consider arguments a party failed to raise properly if our failure to consider the argument would result in a miscarriage of justice. See Smith v. American Guild of Variety Artists, 368 F.2d 511, 515 (8th Cir.1966) (declining to consider argument not raised where enforcing waiver would not result in miscarriage of justice), cert. denied, 387 U.S. 931, 87 S.Ct. 2052, 18 L.Ed.2d 991 (1967). There would certainly be no miscarriage of justice from holding the State to the same principle it seeks to enforce on Abdullah.
It is not enough for the State merely to intone the mantra “procedural default” when it did not identify before the panel the facts that constitute the default — for, as Abdullah can attest after today, this Court requires parties to state their legal theories with some precision.