Citation network
Murray Vs. Carrier
Cites for this judgment
- US Supreme Court
- Jun 26, 1986
Citation network · 7-day free trial
Brief every cited case in minutes
Open an 18-section AI Brief on any citation below, ask scoped follow-ups, and find related precedents with Semantic Search. Full trial - no card required.
- 18-section brief - facts, issues, ratio, relief
- Ask this case - answers cite the judgment
- Semantic search - find precedents by meaning
- Research drawer - sections, cites, related cases
No card required · credentials emailed · Log in if you already have an account
- Distinguished
-
U.S. 478 (1986) U.S. Supreme Court Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
Brief any citation in this list with AI Studio
-
U.S. 478 (1986) Murray v. CarrierSearch
-
or failed to raise the claim despite recognizing it, does not constitute cause for a procedural default. Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
by counsel whose performance is not constitutionally ineffective under the standard established in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
The Virginia Supreme Court refused the appeal, and this Court denied certiorari. Carrier v. VirginiaSearch
-
s failure to raise the issue on direct appeal was a procedural default barring federal habeas review under Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
and that this error was cause for his default. A divided panel of the Court of Appeals reversed and remanded. Carrier v. HuttoSearch
-
construed respondent's objection to the denial of discovery as having rested throughout on a contention that Brady v. MarylandSearch
-
and the en banc Court of Appeals adopted the panel majority's decision, with four judges dissenting. Carrier v. HuttoSearch
-
F.2d 520 (1985). We now reverse and remand. II Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
in order to obtain review of his defaulted constitutional claim. 433 U.S. at 433 U. S. 87 . See also Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
U. S. 536 (1976). In so holding, the Court explicitly rejected the standard described in Fay v. NoiaSearch
-
Id. at 372 U. S. 439 (quoting Johnson v. ZerbstSearch
-
U. S. 458 , 304 U. S. 464 (1938)). See Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
U.S. at 433 U. S. 87 -88. At a minimum, then, Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
U.S. at 433 U. S. 87 . We revisited the cause and prejudice test in Engle v. IsaacSearch
-
U. S. 107 (1982). Like Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
we are not prepared to assume that these costs would be negligible, particularly since, as we observed in Strickland v. WashingtonSearch
-
we note that a showing that the factual or legal basis for a claim was not reasonably available to counsel, see Reed v. RossSearch
-
Brown v. AllenSearch
-
however, that the cause and prejudice test applies to procedural defaults on appeal, as we plainly indicated in Reed v. RossSearch
-
attack. The important role of appellate procedural rules is aptly captured by the Court's description in Reed v. RossSearch
-
procedural rule at issue in this case, warrant our adherence to the conclusion to which they led the Court in Reed v. RossSearch
-
Were we to accept that proposition, defaults on appeal would presumably be governed by a rule equivalent to Fay v. Noia'sSearch
-
whether counsel's decision not to take an appeal at all might require treatment under such a standard, see Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
post at 477 U. S. 506 , n. 13 (quoting Rose v. LundySearch
-
actual prejudice that is required by the cause and prejudice test as interpreted in Engle and in United States v. FradySearch
-
leaves little doubt that this is so. The showing of prejudice required under Page 477 U. S. 494 Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
Frady, supra, at 456 U. S. 166 . See also Henderson v. KibbeSearch
-
be true that the former Rule 12(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, as interpreted in Shotwell Mfg. Co. v. UnitedSearch
-
States, 371 U. S. 341 (1963), and Davis v. UnitedSearch
-
there was cause for noncompliance with that rule. But, while the cause and prejudice test adopted in Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
finds its antecedents in cases interpreting Rule 12(b)(2), the Court in Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
the rule of Francis v. HendersonSearch
-
to the vestigial role JUSTICE STEVENS envisions for it. Moreover, although neither Francis nor Wainwright v. SykesSearch
-
violated by even an isolated error of counsel if that error is sufficiently egregious and prejudicial. United States v. CronicSearch
AI Brief on cited cases - 7-day free trial