Reed v. Ross

Supreme Court of the United States · 1984 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusProcedural DefaultCause and Prejudice28 U.S.C. § 2254procedural defaultcause and prejudicenovel constitutional claim

Facts

Ross was convicted of first-degree murder in North Carolina in 1969. At trial, consistent with then-settled North Carolina law, the jury was instructed that once the State proved an intentional killing with a deadly weapon causing death, presumptions of unlawfulness and malice arose and the burden shifted to Ross to satisfy the jury that he lacked malice or acted in self-defense. Ross did not challenge the constitutionality of those instructions on direct appeal, though he later did so after Mullaney v. Wilbur and Hankerson v. North Carolina. The State conceded actual prejudice because evidence suggested Ross may have acted reflexively in self-defense after being stabbed in the neck immediately before the shooting.

Issue

Whether a state prisoner has "cause" to excuse a procedural default on federal habeas review when his attorney failed to raise, on direct appeal, a constitutional challenge whose legal basis was not reasonably available at the time. Specifically, the question was whether Ross had cause for not anticipating the later rule of Mullaney.

Rule

Where a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for failing to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures. In determining whether a claim was reasonably available in the retroactivity context, the Court looks to whether the later decision was a clear break with the past, including whether it overruled precedent, overturned a longstanding and widespread practice approved by lower courts, or disapproved a practice this Court had arguably sanctioned.

🔒

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 1966, Omar Bennett was convicted in Georgia after the trial judge used a burden-shifting instruction that had been standard in Georgia courts for decades. Omar did not challenge the instruction on direct appeal. In 1974, the Supreme Court announced a new constitutional rule, later held retroactive, invalidating that kind of instruction.

On federal habeas, Omar argues that his failure to raise the issue on direct appeal should be excused. Which fact most strongly supports a finding of cause?

Explanation. Cause may exist when a constitutional claim was so novel that its legal basis was not reasonably available to counsel at the time of default. The majority held that novelty can satisfy cause because counsel's failure to raise a reasonably unknown claim is not treated as a strategic bypass. Difficulty of retrial relates to state interests, not cause, and prejudice is distinct from cause.