Supreme Court of the United States · 2002 · Federal Courts
Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusAdequate and Independent State GroundsProcedural Defaultadequate and independent state groundprocedural defaultfederal habeas reviewstate procedural bar
Facts
Lee's sole affirmative defense at trial was alibi: he claimed he was in California with family when the Kansas City murder occurred. His mother, stepfather, and sister traveled to Missouri voluntarily, met with defense counsel, were subpoenaed, and were present at the courthouse on the third day of trial, but they suddenly disappeared before they were to testify. Defense counsel orally requested a continuance until the next morning so he could locate and compel the witnesses' attendance, but the trial judge denied the request because he could not return the next day and had another case set for the following business day. On direct appeal, the Missouri Court of Appeals refused to consider the federal claim on the merits, holding the continuance motion defective because it was oral rather than written and did not satisfy the factual showings required by Missouri Rules 24.09 and 24.10.
Issue
Whether the Missouri Court of Appeals' reliance on Rules 24.09 and 24.10 constituted an adequate state procedural ground barring federal habeas review of Lee's due process claim. More specifically, the question was whether, in the unusual circumstances of this case, application of those rules was adequate to preclude consideration of Lee's federal claim that he was denied a fair opportunity to present a defense.
Rule
Ordinarily, violation of firmly established and regularly followed state procedural rules is an adequate state ground that forecloses federal review. But in exceptional cases, an exorbitant application of a generally sound rule is inadequate when the defendant has plainly and reasonably asserted the federal right, has substantially complied with the rule's essential requirements, and strict insistence on formal compliance would serve no perceivable state interest.
🔒
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.
During a burglary trial in St. Louis, Devin Carter’s only defense is mistaken identity supported by two subpoenaed coworkers who were waiting at the courthouse that morning. Just before they are to testify, both disappear. Defense counsel orally asks for an overnight continuance to locate them; the judge denies the request because she must attend a medical procedure the next day and has another criminal docket set for Monday. On direct appeal, the state argues for the first time that the motion was barred because it was not written and did not separately itemize materiality, diligence, and likelihood of securing the witnesses soon.
If Devin later seeks federal habeas review of his federal due process claim, what is the best analysis of the state procedural bar?
Explanation. Ordinarily, violation of a firmly established and regularly followed state procedural rule is an adequate state ground. But the majority recognized a narrow exception when application of the rule is exorbitant in the particular case. Relevant considerations include that the trial court denied relief for reasons unrelated to the procedural defect, the defendant substantially satisfied the rule’s essential purposes, and formal compliance would have served no perceivable state interest. Those features point against adequacy here.