Fay v. Noia

Supreme Court of the United States · 1963 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsFederal Habeas CorpusExhaustion of State RemediesState Procedural Defaulthabeas corpus28 U.S.C. 225428 U.S.C. 2243exhaustion

Facts

Noia was convicted in 1942 in New York of felony murder along with two codefendants, and the sole evidence against each defendant was his signed confession. The State later conceded that Noia's confession, like those of his codefendants, had been obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Unlike his codefendants, Noia did not take a direct appeal, and when he later sought state coram nobis relief, New York denied it because he had not pursued the ordinary appeal route. He then filed for federal habeas corpus.

Issue

May a federal court grant habeas relief to a state prisoner whose conviction rests on a coerced confession when the prisoner failed to take a direct state appeal and the state courts later refused collateral relief on that ground? More specifically, does that failure either deprive the federal court of habeas power, constitute a failure to exhaust under § 2254, or amount to a waiver barring relief?

Rule

Federal courts have power under the habeas statute to grant relief to a state prisoner despite a prior state procedural default, so long as the prisoner is in custody in violation of the Constitution. Section 2254's exhaustion requirement refers only to state remedies still open to the prisoner when the federal habeas application is filed. A federal habeas court may, in its discretion, deny relief only where the petitioner deliberately bypassed state procedures by an intentional, knowing, and understanding relinquishment of the opportunity to press the federal claim in state court.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

In Ohio, Devin Cross was convicted in state court after the prosecution introduced a statement later conceded to have been obtained in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment. Devin never filed a direct appeal, and the time for appeal expired years before he filed a federal habeas petition.

Which is the strongest argument for the federal district court's authority to hear Devin's habeas petition?

Explanation. The majority held that federal habeas power turns on custody in violation of the Constitution, not on whether the prisoner once failed to pursue a state remedy that is now unavailable. State procedural default does not itself eliminate federal habeas power.