Harris v. Reed

Supreme Court of the United States · 1989 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusAdequate and Independent State GroundsProcedural Defaultfederal habeasprocedural defaultplain statement ruleadequate and independent state ground

Facts

Harris was convicted of murder in Illinois, and on direct appeal he challenged only the sufficiency of the evidence. In state postconviction proceedings, he alleged ineffective assistance of counsel, including failure to call alibi witnesses. The Illinois Appellate Court noted the Illinois rule that issues that could have been raised on direct appeal but were not are waived, stated that most of Harris's allegations could have been raised earlier, but then proceeded to consider and reject the ineffective-assistance claim on the merits. Harris then filed a federal habeas petition, and the federal courts disagreed over whether the state court had actually relied on waiver as an independent procedural ground.

Issue

When a state court opinion in a habeas case ambiguously refers to a state procedural default but also addresses the federal claim on the merits, does that ambiguity bar federal habeas review? More specifically, does the Michigan v. Long plain-statement rule apply in federal habeas proceedings under § 2254 as well as on direct review?

Rule

A procedural default does not bar consideration of a federal claim on either direct or habeas review unless the last state court rendering judgment in the case clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar. Thus, on federal habeas review, an ambiguous reference to state procedural default is insufficient to establish an adequate and independent state ground.

🔒

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, Malik Turner was convicted of robbery. In state postconviction proceedings, he argued that his lawyer violated the Sixth Amendment by failing to investigate a surveillance video. The Ohio Court of Appeals wrote that claims "not raised on direct appeal are generally waived," noted that Malik's argument "could have been raised earlier," and then devoted the rest of the opinion to rejecting the ineffective-assistance claim on its merits.

If Malik later files a federal habeas petition raising the same federal claim, which is the best answer?

Explanation. On federal habeas review, a procedural default bars review only if the last state court rendering judgment clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar. An ambiguous reference such as saying the claim "could have been raised earlier," followed by a merits discussion, is insufficient. The federal court should not speculate about whether the state court meant to rely on waiver.