United States v. Frady

Supreme Court of the United States · 1982 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsCollateral ReviewSection 2255Procedural Default28 U.S.C. § 2255plain errorRule 52(b)Rule 30

Facts

Frady was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery after evidence showed that he and Gordon reconnoitered the victim's house, entered it, brutally killed the victim, and were caught fleeing covered in the victim's blood. At trial, Frady denied involvement and did not assert justification, mitigation, excuse, or any basis for manslaughter. Years later, in a § 2255 motion, he argued that the trial court's malice instructions were erroneous under later D.C. Circuit decisions because they improperly equated intent with malice and instructed that malice could be presumed from use of a weapon. The Government did not contest that the instructions were erroneous under those later rulings.

Issue

When a federal prisoner collaterally attacks his conviction under § 2255 based on jury-instruction error to which he made no contemporaneous objection and which he did not raise on direct appeal, does the reviewing court apply Rule 52(b)'s plain-error standard or the cause-and-actual-prejudice standard? If the latter applies, did Frady show the actual prejudice necessary for collateral relief?

Rule

The plain-error standard of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), intended for direct appeal, does not govern collateral review under § 2255 of trial errors not objected to at trial. To obtain collateral relief for such errors, a prisoner must show both cause excusing the procedural default and actual prejudice; for instruction error, actual prejudice means the challenged instruction so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process, and the prisoner must show actual and substantial disadvantage, not merely a possibility of prejudice.

🔒

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 federal court in Chicago, Devon Pike was convicted of armed bank robbery. He did not object when the judge misstated an element in the jury instructions, and he did not raise the issue on direct appeal. Twelve years later, he files a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 and argues the court should vacate his conviction because the instruction was 'plain error' under Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b).

What standard should the district court apply to Devon's collateral challenge?

Explanation. On collateral review under § 2255, a federal prisoner who failed to object at trial and failed to raise the issue on direct appeal must satisfy the cause-and-actual-prejudice standard. The majority rejected use of Rule 52(b)'s plain-error standard for such collateral attacks, emphasizing that collateral review is not a substitute for a second appeal and that final judgments carry special weight.