Supreme Court of the United States · 1965 · Federal Courts
Federal Courtscontemporaneous objectionprocedural defaultadequate state groundfederal questionwaiverdeliberate bypassstate procedural rules
Facts
Petitioner was convicted of disturbing the peace based largely on the testimony of an 18-year-old hitchhiker, and the jury was instructed that it could not convict on her unsupported and uncorroborated testimony alone. To corroborate her account, the State introduced a police officer's testimony that, after petitioner's arrest, he inspected petitioner's car with the permission of petitioner's wife and found details matching the hitchhiker's description, including Dentyne gum wrappers in the ashtray and a cigarette lighter that did not work. The Mississippi Supreme Court held that this evidence was improperly admitted as the fruit of an unlawful search under the state constitution. Petitioner did not object when the testimony was introduced, but later moved for a directed verdict at the close of the State's evidence on the ground that the testimony was illegally obtained.
Issue
Whether Mississippi's enforcement of its contemporaneous-objection rule barred Supreme Court consideration of petitioner's federal claim, and whether petitioner should be treated as having knowingly waived that claim by deliberately bypassing the opportunity to object at the time the evidence was introduced.
Rule
A state procedural default bars vindication of a federal claim only if the State's insistence on compliance with its procedural rule serves a legitimate state interest. Even where the state rule is legitimate, a defendant may be deemed to have forfeited review if, after consultation with competent counsel or otherwise, he understandingly and knowingly deliberately bypassed state procedures for strategic, tactical, or similar reasons.
🔒
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
One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.
In a burglary trial in Cleveland, defense counsel for Omar Vega did not object when the prosecutor introduced a crowbar taken from Omar's garage during a warrantless entry. At the close of the prosecution's case, counsel moved to strike the crowbar and argued that it was obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment, giving the trial judge a chance to hear argument and exclude it before the case went to the jury. The Ohio Supreme Court refused to consider the federal claim solely because no contemporaneous objection had been made.
On direct review of the federal claim, what is the best analysis?
Explanation. When a state court relies on a procedural default to block a federal claim, whether that default bars federal review is itself a federal question. The key inquiry is whether the State's insistence on compliance with the rule serves a legitimate state interest in the particular circumstances. A contemporaneous-objection rule generally serves such an interest, but if a later motion still gave the trial judge a fair opportunity to take corrective action, enforcing the rule may not be adequate unless the defendant deliberately bypassed state procedures.