harris
reed
argued
october
decided
february
petitioner
murder
conviction
affirmed
appellate
illinois
direct
appeal
petitioner
challenged
sufficiency
evidence
trial
dismissed
petition
postconviction
relief
alleged
ineffective
assistance
trial
counsel
several
respects
including
failure
call
alibi
witnesses
appellate
affirmed
although
referring
illinois
principle
issues
presented
direct
appeal
considered
waived
finding
except
alibi
witnesses
petitioner
claim
raised
direct
appeal
nevertheless
went
consider
reject
claim
merits
petitioner
pursued
claim
filing
habeas
corpus
petition
federal
district
recognizing
absent
showing
either
cause
prejudice
miscarriage
justice
wainwright
sykes
barred
consideration
claim
state
appellate
held
claim
waived
state
law
federal
determined
waiver
holding
went
consider
claim
entirety
dismiss
merits
affirming
dismissal
appeals
ruled
precluded
reviewing
claim
merits
believed
claim
procedurally
barred
finding
state
appellate
order
ambiguous
waiver
question
nevertheless
concluded
bound
order
suggest
ed
intention
find
grounds
waived
except
pertaining
alibi
witnesses
held
plain
statement
rule
michigan
long
limited
cases
direct
review
extends
well
cases
federal
habeas
review
pp
sykes
procedural
default
rule
based
longstanding
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
whereby
consider
federal
law
issue
direct
review
judgment
judgment
rests
ground
independent
federal
claim
merits
adequate
basis
decision
long
rule
avoids
difficulties
arise
doctrine
state
reference
state
law
ambiguous
permitting
reach
federal
question
direct
review
unless
state
opinion
contains
plain
statement
decision
rests
upon
adequate
independent
state
grounds
whether
substantive
procedural
pp
since
sykes
made
clear
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
applies
federal
habeas
since
federal
courts
habeas
review
commonly
face
problem
ambiguity
resolved
long
plain
statement
rule
adopted
habeas
cases
thus
procedural
default
bar
consideration
federal
claim
habeas
review
unless
last
state
rendering
judgment
case
clearly
expressly
judgment
rests
state
procedural
bar
pp
respondents
claim
persuasive
federal
habeas
case
presume
judgment
rests
procedural
bar
whenever
decision
ambiguous
point
applying
long
rule
habeas
barely
burdens
interests
finality
federalism
comity
since
state
remains
free
rule
foreclose
federal
habeas
review
extent
permitted
sykes
simply
explicitly
relying
procedural
default
conversely
respondents
proposed
rule
impose
substantial
burdens
federal
courts
lose
much
time
reviewing
legal
factual
issues
state
familiar
state
law
record
better
suited
address
expeditiously
pp
state
appellate
statement
petitioner
allegations
raised
direct
appeal
satisfy
plain
statement
requirement
since
falls
short
explicit
reliance
waiver
ground
rejecting
aspect
petitioner
claim
accordingly
statement
preclude
habeas
review
district
blackmun
delivered
opinion
rehnquist
brennan
white
marshall
stevens
scalia
joined
stevens
filed
concurring
opinion
post
filed
concurring
opinion
rehnquist
scalia
joined
post
kennedy
filed
dissenting
opinion
post
kimball
anderson
appointment
argued
cause
petitioner
briefs
george
christensen
king
poor
robert
shuff
first
assistant
attorney
general
illinois
argued
cause
respondents
brief
neil
hartigan
attorney
general
robert
ruiz
solicitor
general
terence
madsen
arleen
anderson
assistant
attorneys
general
judith
lynn
libby
filed
brief
national
legal
aid
defender
association
amicus
curiae
urging
reversal
briefs
amici
curiae
filed
state
california
ex
rel
john
van
de
kamp
van
de
kamp
attorney
general
california
pro
se
steve
white
chief
assistant
attorney
general
donald
roeschke
deputy
attorney
general
state
florida
robert
butterworth
attorney
general
charles
corces
assistant
attorney
general
justice
blackmun
delivered
opinion
case
consider
whether
plain
statement
rule
michigan
long
applies
case
federal
habeas
review
well
case
direct
review
hold
petitioner
warren
lee
harris
convicted
circuit
cook
county
murder
direct
appeal
petitioner
challenged
sufficiency
evidence
appellate
illinois
unpublished
order
affirmed
conviction
app
see
app
petitioner
returned
circuit
cook
county
filed
petition
postconviction
relief
alleging
trial
counsel
rendered
ineffective
assistance
several
respects
including
failure
call
alibi
witnesses
dismissed
petition
without
evidentiary
hearing
appellate
illinois
another
unpublished
order
affirmed
app
order
appellate
referred
principle
illinois
law
issues
presented
direct
appeal
considered
waived
found
except
alibi
witnesses
petitioner
allegations
raised
direct
appeal
ibid
however
went
consider
reject
petitioner
claim
merits
petitioner
seek
review
illinois
instead
pursued
claim
federal
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
district
recognized
illinois
appellate
held
claim
waived
illinois
law
decision
wainwright
sykes
bar
federal
consideration
claim
unless
petitioner
able
show
either
cause
prejudice
miscarriage
justice
supp
nd
district
however
determined
illinois
appellate
held
portion
claim
waived
first
district
observed
state
made
clear
waiver
apply
issue
alibi
witnesses
second
never
clearly
held
issue
waived
state
appear
make
two
rulings
alternative
rather
note
procedural
default
ignore
reaching
merits
instead
ibid
based
determination
district
concluded
permitted
consider
claim
entirety
ordered
evidentiary
hearing
hearing
unpublished
memorandum
order
dismissed
claim
merits
although
characterized
case
close
difficult
one
app
appeals
affirmed
dismissal
reach
merits
disagreement
district
believed
claim
procedurally
barred
considering
illinois
appellate
order
ambiguous
contained
neither
explicit
finding
waiver
expression
intention
ignore
waiver
appeals
nonetheless
asserted
reviewing
try
assess
state
intention
extent
possible
undertaking
effort
appeals
concluded
order
suggest
ed
intention
find
grounds
waived
except
pertaining
alibi
witnesses
ibid
based
interpretation
order
appeals
concluded
merits
petitioner
federal
claim
reached
alternate
holding
considered
precluded
reviewing
merits
claim
concurring
separately
judge
cudahy
stated
rather
attempting
divine
unspoken
intent
state
think
invoke
presumption
waiver
clearly
found
condoned
ibid
disagreement
majority
concurrence
reflects
conflict
among
courts
appeals
standard
determining
whether
state
ambiguous
invocation
procedural
default
bars
federal
habeas
review
granted
certiorari
resolve
conflict
ii
confusion
among
courts
evidently
stems
failure
recognize
procedural
default
rule
wainwright
sykes
historical
theoretical
basis
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
lineage
rule
clarified
cure
confusion
becomes
apparent
long
held
consider
issue
federal
law
direct
review
judgment
state
judgment
rests
ground
independent
merits
federal
claim
adequate
basis
decision
see
fox
film
muller
murdock
city
memphis
wall
although
doctrine
originated
context
judgments
alternative
state
federal
grounds
substantive
nature
doctrine
applied
routinely
state
decisions
forfeiting
federal
claims
violation
state
procedural
rules
meltzer
state
forfeitures
federal
rights
harv
rev
question
whether
state
reference
state
law
constitutes
adequate
independent
state
ground
judgment
may
rendered
difficult
ambiguity
state
opinion
michigan
long
laid
rule
avoid
difficulties
associated
ambiguity
long
fairly
appears
state
rested
decision
primarily
federal
law
may
reach
federal
question
review
unless
state
opinion
contains
plain
statement
decision
rests
upon
adequate
independent
state
grounds
long
plain
statement
rule
applies
regardless
whether
disputed
ground
substantive
long
procedural
caldwell
mississippi
thus
mere
fact
federal
claimant
failed
abide
state
procedural
rule
prevent
reaching
federal
claim
state
must
actually
relied
procedural
bar
independent
basis
disposition
case
ibid
furthermore
ambiguities
regard
must
resolved
application
long
standard
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
problem
ambiguity
resolved
long
concern
cases
direct
review
pursuant
also
federal
habeas
corpus
proceedings
pursuant
wainwright
sykes
made
clear
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
applies
federal
habeas
see
also
ulster
county
allen
sykes
progeny
adequate
independent
finding
procedural
default
bar
federal
habeas
review
federal
claim
unless
habeas
petitioner
show
cause
default
prejudice
attributable
thereto
murray
carrier
demonstrate
failure
consider
federal
claim
result
fundamental
miscarriage
justice
quoting
engle
isaac
see
also
smith
murray
conversely
federal
claimant
procedural
default
precludes
federal
habeas
review
like
direct
review
last
state
rendering
judgment
case
rests
judgment
procedural
default
see
caldwell
mississippi
ulster
county
allen
moreover
question
whether
state
indeed
done
sometimes
difficult
answer
habeas
review
direct
review
encounters
opinions
unclear
point
federal
courts
habeas
review
thus
presents
problem
ambiguity
resolved
michigan
long
held
long
unless
state
clearly
expressed
reliance
adequate
independent
ground
may
address
federal
issue
considered
state
applied
rule
caldwell
mississippi
somewhat
cryptic
reference
procedural
default
opinion
although
long
caldwell
arose
direct
review
principles
underlying
decisions
limited
direct
review
indeed
opinion
caldwell
relied
heavily
upon
earlier
application
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
habeas
review
ulster
county
see
caldwell
caldwell
thus
indicates
problem
ambiguous
references
state
law
led
adoption
long
plain
statement
rule
common
direct
habeas
review
faced
common
problem
adopt
common
solution
procedural
default
bar
consideration
federal
claim
either
direct
habeas
review
unless
last
state
rendering
judgment
case
clearly
expressly
judgment
rests
state
procedural
bar
caldwell
quoting
long
respondents
however
urge
us
adopt
different
rule
habeas
cases
arguing
decision
ambiguous
whether
judgment
rests
procedural
bar
federal
presume
respondents
claim
applying
long
plain
statement
requirement
habeas
cases
harm
interests
finality
federalism
comity
alert
recognizing
federal
habeas
review
touches
upon
significant
state
interests
wainwright
sykes
reveals
see
believe
however
applying
long
habeas
burdens
interests
minimally
benefits
contrast
substantial
state
remains
free
long
rule
rely
state
procedural
bar
thereby
foreclose
federal
habeas
review
extent
permitted
sykes
requiring
state
explicit
reliance
procedural
default
interfere
unduly
state
judicial
long
recognized
intrusive
federal
state
determination
state
law
moreover
state
courts
become
familiar
plain
statement
requirement
long
caldwell
decision
today
state
need
nothing
preclude
habeas
review
must
preclude
direct
review
contrast
respondents
proposed
rule
impose
substantial
burdens
federal
courts
oral
argument
counsel
respondents
conceded
circumstances
proposal
federal
habeas
forced
examine
record
determine
whether
procedural
default
argued
state
required
undertake
extensive
analysis
state
law
determine
whether
procedural
bar
potentially
applicable
particular
case
see
tr
oral
arg
much
time
lost
reviewing
legal
factual
issues
state
familiar
state
law
record
better
suited
address
expeditiously
plain
statement
requirement
achieves
important
objective
permitting
federal
rapidly
identify
whether
federal
issues
properly
presented
respondents
proposed
rule
thus
persuaded
depart
long
caldwell
simply
habeas
case
extended
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
habeas
cases
extend
habeas
review
plain
statement
rule
determining
whether
state
relied
adequate
independent
state
ground
iii
applying
plain
statement
requirement
case
conclude
illinois
appellate
clearly
expressly
rely
waiver
ground
rejecting
aspect
petitioner
claim
michigan
long
sure
state
perhaps
laid
foundation
holding
stating
petitioner
allegations
raised
direct
appeal
app
nonetheless
appeals
recognized
statement
falls
short
explicit
reliance
ground
accordingly
reference
state
law
precluded
addressing
petitioner
claim
arisen
direct
review
established
also
preclude
habeas
review
district
judgment
appeals
reversed
case
remanded
proceedings
consistent
opinion
ordered
footnotes
discussion
terms
cause
prejudice
miscarriage
justice
see
murray
carrier
smith
murray
opinion
need
thus
address
meanings
terms
clear
appeals
review
least
merits
petitioner
claim
concerning
failure
present
alibi
witnesses
inasmuch
acknowledged
petitioner
waived
aspect
claim
clear
even
regard
rest
petitioner
claim
appeals
consider
possibility
cause
prejudice
miscarriage
justice
sykes
progeny
view
disposition
case
need
consider
omissions
compare
hardin
black
federal
must
address
merits
federal
claim
unclear
whether
state
denied
relief
procedural
default
view
merits
brasier
douglas
federal
must
address
merits
federal
claim
whenever
state
addressed
merits
federal
claim
even
clear
state
alternatively
relied
procedural
bar
cert
denied
shepard
foltz
unclear
whether
state
relied
upon
procedural
bar
federal
examine
arguments
presented
state
see
also
mann
dugger
clark
specially
concurring
michigan
long
plain
statement
rule
applies
habeas
well
direct
review
rehearing
en
banc
cert
pending
judges
indeed
analyzed
problem
terms
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
see
meadows
holland
winter
dissenting
en
banc
decision
cert
pending
mann
dugger
clark
specially
concurring
see
herndon
georgia
discussion
whether
state
procedural
default
ruling
independent
see
ake
oklahoma
whether
state
procedural
default
ruling
adequate
see
johnson
mississippi
see
generally
bator
meltzer
mishkin
shapiro
hart
wechsler
federal
courts
federal
system
ed
since
long
repeatedly
followed
plain
statement
requirement
see
michigan
chesternut
kentucky
stincer
maryland
garrison
new
york
video
delaware
van
arsdall
new
york
class
case
example
district
appeals
found
illinois
appellate
opinion
ambiguous
point
rule
necessarily
applies
state
presented
federal
claim
usually
true
given
requirement
federal
claimant
exhaust
remedies
raising
claim
federal
habeas
petition
see
course
federal
habeas
need
require
federal
claim
presented
state
clear
state
hold
claim
procedurally
barred
castille
peoples
post
teague
lane
post
plurality
opinion
case
however
involve
application
exhaustion
principle
petitioner
raise
claim
state
moreover
state
need
fear
reaching
merits
federal
claim
alternative
holding
definition
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
requires
federal
honor
state
holding
sufficient
basis
state
judgment
even
state
also
relies
federal
law
see
fox
film
muller
thus
applying
doctrine
habeas
cases
sykes
curtails
reconsideration
federal
issue
federal
habeas
long
state
explicitly
invokes
state
procedural
bar
rule
separate
basis
decision
way
state
may
reach
federal
question
without
sacrificing
interests
finality
federalism
comity
respondents
argue
plain
statement
requirement
entails
presumption
state
courts
disobey
procedural
bar
rules
argument
inconsistent
caldwell
confirmed
long
applicability
procedural
default
cases
event
respondents
recognize
instances
state
courts
discretion
forgive
procedural
defaults
see
brief
respondents
plain
statement
rule
relieves
federal
determine
whether
given
case
consistent
state
law
state
chosen
forgive
procedural
default
insofar
dissent
urges
us
repudiate
application
long
caldwell
decline
additionally
dissent
fear
post
holding
submerge
courts
flood
improper
prisoner
petitions
unrealistic
state
wishes
rely
procedural
bar
rule
pro
forma
order
easily
write
relief
denied
reasons
procedural
default
course
state
state
law
chooses
rely
procedural
bar
circumstances
basis
federal
habeas
refusing
consider
merits
federal
claim
see
ulster
county
allen
perhaps
argued
statement
sufficed
state
never
reached
federal
claim
state
clearly
went
reject
federal
claim
merits
result
reference
state
law
state
opinion
insufficient
demonstrate
clearly
whether
intended
invoke
waiver
alternative
ground
precisely
regard
ambiguous
reference
state
law
context
clear
reliance
federal
law
long
permits
federal
review
federal
issue
see
justice
stevens
concurring
view
dissent
michigan
long
appropriate
add
words
explaining
unique
virtue
applying
rule
case
problem
presented
case
dissent
michigan
long
addressed
primarily
two
concerns
first
adopting
presumption
favoring
assertion
federal
jurisdiction
ambiguous
cases
ignored
longstanding
venerated
presumption
federal
courts
without
jurisdiction
unless
contrary
appears
affirmatively
record
see
delaware
van
arsdall
stevens
dissenting
quoting
king
bridge
otoe
county
second
original
form
presumption
adopted
michigan
long
expanded
review
cases
state
courts
overprotected
respective
citizens
opinion
federal
courts
particularly
primary
obligation
protect
rights
individual
embodied
federal
constitution
see
although
cases
involving
overly
expansive
interpretations
federally
protected
rights
surely
merit
federal
review
interest
correcting
errors
necessarily
secondary
federal
courts
principal
role
protector
federally
secured
rights
expenditure
scarce
judicial
resources
intrusion
state
affairs
accordingly
less
justified
state
gone
far
protecting
federal
right
state
failed
provide
constitutional
minimum
protection
concerns
however
implicated
case
federal
considering
petition
writ
habeas
corpus
must
decide
whether
state
procedural
bar
constitutes
adequate
independent
state
ground
denying
relief
decisions
fay
noia
wainwright
sykes
make
clear
adequate
independent
state
ground
decision
dispossess
federal
courts
jurisdiction
collateral
review
significantly
considering
petitions
relief
federal
courts
review
decisions
determine
gone
far
protecting
rights
citizenry
rather
perform
core
function
vindicating
federally
protected
rights
concerns
prevented
joining
majority
opinion
michigan
long
present
case
join
opinion
judgment
justice
chief
justice
justice
scalia
join
concurring
join
opinion
general
agreement
decision
apply
plain
statement
rule
michigan
long
state
courts
invocation
state
procedural
default
rules
write
separately
emphasize
two
points
first
read
opinion
addressing
altering
rule
lower
federal
courts
may
properly
inquire
availability
state
remedies
determining
whether
claims
presented
petition
federal
habeas
corpus
properly
exhausted
state
courts
see
humphrey
cady
ex
parte
hawk
congress
provided
writ
habeas
corpus
shall
granted
unless
appears
applicant
exhausted
remedies
available
courts
state
either
absence
available
state
corrective
processes
existence
circumstances
rendering
process
ineffective
protect
rights
prisoner
exhaustion
requirement
satisfied
habeas
petitioner
right
law
state
raise
available
procedure
question
presented
thus
determining
whether
remedy
particular
constitutional
claim
available
federal
courts
authorized
indeed
required
assess
likelihood
state
accord
habeas
petitioner
hearing
merits
claim
rule
requiring
habeas
petitioner
exhaust
available
remedies
state
seeking
review
claims
via
federal
habeas
corpus
serves
two
important
interests
first
roots
lie
respect
federal
courts
owe
procedures
erected
correct
constitutional
errors
confidence
state
judges
take
encouraged
take
constitutional
duties
seriously
second
rule
furthers
interest
efficiency
federal
habeas
corpus
assuring
general
factual
legal
bases
surrounding
petitioner
constitutional
claim
claims
developed
prior
adjudication
see
generally
rose
lundy
protect
interests
held
federal
habeas
petitioner
raises
claim
never
presented
state
forum
federal
may
properly
determine
whether
claim
procedurally
defaulted
state
law
remedy
state
unavailable
within
meaning
see
engle
isaac
lower
courts
consistently
looked
state
procedural
default
rules
making
availability
determination
decision
engle
see
watson
alabama
cert
denied
leroy
marshall
cert
denied
wayne
white
williams
duckworth
cert
denied
richardson
turner
beaty
patton
jackson
cupp
matias
oshiro
keener
ridenour
smith
estelle
ex
rel
williams
brantley
indeed
reaffirmed
applied
rule
engle
teague
lane
post
contrary
rule
make
sense
require
plain
statement
indicating
state
reliance
procedural
bar
state
ever
given
opportunity
pass
either
procedural
posture
merits
constitutional
claim
moreover
dismissing
petitions
failure
exhaust
state
remedies
often
result
game
judicial
state
federal
courts
state
prisoner
returned
state
state
procedural
bar
invoked
see
fay
noia
ex
rel
williams
brantley
supra
refuse
contribute
needless
delaying
requirements
procedure
already
often
results
shuttling
prisoners
back
forth
state
federal
courts
decision
merits
ever
reached
finally
rule
create
incentive
proceed
immediately
federal
bypassing
state
postconviction
remedies
entirely
hope
lack
state
decision
applicability
state
procedural
bar
treated
ambiguity
result
run
counter
decisions
see
rose
supra
also
frustrate
congressional
purpose
embodied
sum
simply
impossible
equir
state
explicit
reliance
procedural
default
ante
claim
raised
federal
habeas
never
presented
state
courts
context
federal
courts
quite
properly
look
apply
state
procedural
default
rules
making
congressionally
mandated
determination
whether
adequate
remedies
available
state
second
concern
stems
majority
references
decisions
murray
carrier
smith
murray
decisions
reaffirmed
holding
wainwright
sykes
state
prisoner
pursuing
federal
habeas
remedies
must
show
cause
procedural
default
prejudice
flowing
alleged
constitutional
violation
federal
entertain
claim
merits
despite
existence
otherwise
preclusive
ground
decision
murray
carrier
rejected
reworking
cause
prejudice
test
dispense
requirement
petitioner
show
cause
instead
focus
exclusively
whether
manifest
injustice
denial
fundamental
fairness
went
indicate
remain
confident
part
victims
fundamental
miscarriage
justice
meet
standard
pretend
always
true
accordingly
think
extraordinary
case
constitutional
violation
probably
resulted
conviction
one
actually
innocent
federal
habeas
may
grant
writ
even
absence
showing
cause
procedural
default
citation
omitted
justice
kennedy
dissenting
case
presents
question
whether
federal
may
entertain
habeas
corpus
petition
without
showing
cause
prejudice
state
federal
claim
presented
mentions
procedural
default
yet
considers
also
merits
claim
majority
holds
federal
habeas
courts
must
reach
merits
federal
issue
absent
explicit
reliance
bar
evidenced
plain
statement
state
opinion
two
premises
underlie
today
holding
first
although
case
us
federal
habeas
corpus
proceeding
majority
explores
whether
ambiguous
reference
state
procedural
bar
deprive
us
jurisdiction
matter
direct
review
majority
discovers
rule
michigan
long
designed
cases
state
explicitly
relies
state
substantive
ground
appears
interwoven
federal
law
applies
well
direct
review
case
ambiguity
concerning
whether
state
intended
rely
procedural
bar
thus
fortified
enhanced
long
rule
majority
turns
case
us
stakes
second
premise
direct
review
collateral
attack
cases
governed
rule
majority
therefore
concludes
federal
habeas
courts
must
apply
long
determining
whether
state
reference
procedural
bar
triggers
inquiry
prescribed
wainwright
sykes
disagreement
majority
premises
elicits
respectful
dissent
settled
law
judgment
state
rests
upon
two
grounds
one
federal
character
jurisdiction
fails
ground
independent
federal
ground
adequate
support
judgment
fox
film
muller
rule
first
announced
deny
authority
revise
judgments
resting
alternative
state
substantive
ground
murdock
memphis
wall
later
extended
bar
direct
review
state
judgments
rest
adequate
independent
state
procedural
grounds
see
henry
mississippi
herndon
georgia
follows
state
refuses
consider
federal
claims
owing
criminal
defendant
failure
comply
state
procedural
rule
otherwise
adequate
independent
lack
authority
consider
claims
direct
review
discussions
jurisdictional
principle
identified
circumstances
state
procedural
grounds
inadequate
support
result
johnson
mississippi
james
kentucky
state
procedural
grounds
deemed
independent
underlying
federal
rights
ake
oklahoma
analogous
body
doctrine
aids
us
assessing
independence
state
substantive
grounds
see
enterprise
irrigation
dist
farmers
mutual
canal
might
expected
light
common
history
purposes
doctrines
significant
degree
overlap
precedents
declare
however
important
distinguish
state
substantive
grounds
state
procedural
grounds
henry
mississippi
caution
indiscriminate
application
principles
developed
cases
involving
state
substantive
grounds
cases
involving
procedural
defaults
see
see
also
wainwright
sykes
supra
principles
ensure
respect
integrity
judgments
michigan
long
supra
considered
jurisdiction
review
judgment
michigan
ruled
search
unlawful
state
opinion
relied
almost
exclusively
federal
decisions
construing
fourth
amendment
though
twice
cited
analogous
state
constitutional
provision
review
precedents
considering
whether
various
forms
references
state
law
constitute
adequate
independent
state
grounds
adopted
presumption
favor
federal
review
state
decision
fairly
appears
rest
primarily
federal
law
interwoven
federal
law
adequacy
independence
possible
state
law
ground
clear
face
opinion
resolution
ambiguities
favor
federal
review
rested
critical
assumption
state
judgment
contains
plain
statement
effect
federal
cases
used
solely
persuasive
authority
state
law
interwoven
federal
law
accept
reasonable
explanation
state
decided
case
way
believed
federal
law
required
emphasis
added
approach
added
advantage
requiring
us
interpret
state
laws
generally
unfamiliar
may
persuasive
argument
applying
long
cases
coming
direct
review
independence
state
procedural
ground
doubt
state
rule
interwoven
federal
law
example
state
made
application
procedural
bar
depend
antecedent
ruling
federal
law
determination
whether
federal
constitutional
error
committed
ake
oklahoma
supra
see
also
longshoremen
davis
situation
presented
case
us
illinois
defendant
neglects
raise
claim
inadequate
representation
direct
appeal
may
later
assert
claim
petition
relief
ex
rel
devine
derobertis
collecting
cases
though
strict
application
doctrine
may
relaxed
fundamental
fairness
requires
people
gaines
cert
denied
quoting
people
burns
petitioner
claim
federal
constitutional
analysis
somehow
determinative
fundamental
fairness
illinois
law
even
uncertainty
exists
point
circumstances
need
plain
statement
indicating
independence
state
grounds
since
federal
law
interwoven
determination
pennsylvania
finley
brennan
dissenting
citing
michigan
long
purported
ambiguity
case
much
dissimilar
ambiguity
confronted
long
long
references
state
constitution
way
indicat
ed
decision
rested
grounds
way
independent
state
interpretation
federal
law
emphasis
original
thus
raising
question
whether
state
decided
case
way
believed
federal
law
required
see
also
pennsylvania
finley
supra
stevens
dissenting
question
case
remotely
implicate
independence
ground
federal
law
alleged
ambiguity
illinois
appellate
opinion
relates
instead
whether
state
ground
invoked
majority
explain
adopting
michigan
long
presumption
different
context
sensible
seems
applied
case
reasonable
explanation
test
michigan
long
suggests
illinois
referred
petitioner
procedural
default
rely
interesting
aside
state
rule
failure
raise
claim
appeal
waiver
rule
exception
presumably
intended
apply
smaller
number
cases
general
rule
waiver
operates
lift
procedural
bar
justice
requires
adopted
procedural
default
rules
like
structure
see
roman
abrams
discussing
analogous
new
york
rule
cert
pending
may
fairly
assumed
procedural
bars
fact
subject
exception
even
quite
narrow
one
empirical
logical
support
however
view
reasonable
explanation
reference
general
rule
intends
rely
exception
mention
contrary
unreasonable
adopt
rule
assumes
either
state
courts
routinely
invoke
exceptions
procedural
bars
without
saying
courts
habit
disregarding
rules
indeed
majority
aim
devise
rule
explain
best
greatest
number
similarly
ambiguous
opinions
announce
mirror
image
rule
adopted
today
presume
procedural
bar
invoked
unless
state
plain
statement
specifically
relied
exception
alternative
rule
serve
majority
apparent
concern
clarity
equal
measure
far
accurate
assessment
intent
state
cases
rule
additional
advantage
presuming
state
disregarded
laws
instances
either
exception
bar
exception
manifestly
inapplicable
defendant
cf
black
romano
must
presume
state
judge
followed
state
law
makeweight
unconvincing
moreover
justify
majority
extension
michigan
long
basis
interest
avoiding
unnecessary
inquiries
state
laws
generally
unfamiliar
michigan
long
supra
concern
slight
ground
procedural
rather
substantive
doctrine
adequacy
developed
context
procedural
bars
already
requires
us
conduct
extensive
reviews
questions
state
procedural
law
order
determine
whether
state
procedural
rule
strictly
regularly
followed
johnson
mississippi
quoting
barr
columbia
state
courts
may
avoid
deciding
federal
issues
invoking
procedural
rules
apply
evenhandedly
similar
claims
hathorn
lovorn
institutionally
capable
assessing
whether
state
procedural
rule
applied
evenhandedly
similar
claims
certainly
capable
assessing
whether
given
case
exception
procedural
bar
applicable
invoked
sidesteps
obvious
difficulties
new
rule
stating
decision
caldwell
mississippi
already
held
ambiguity
concerning
whether
state
actually
relied
procedural
bar
must
resolved
application
long
standard
ante
true
caldwell
addressed
question
whether
state
relied
procedural
bar
referred
michigan
long
indicating
somewhat
obliquely
lower
opinion
contain
explicit
statement
decision
based
state
law
caldwell
perhaps
entirely
clear
point
difficult
view
statements
announcing
conclusively
long
presumption
applies
cases
doubt
concerning
whether
state
intended
rely
procedural
bar
event
references
long
rule
caldwell
entirely
unnecessary
decision
majority
uncritical
interpretation
caldwell
controlling
authority
misplaced
caldwell
two
reasons
persuaded
us
reject
state
argument
procedural
bar
deprived
us
jurisdiction
first
review
state
opinion
persuaded
us
read
meaning
procedural
waiver
basis
decision
caldwell
supra
emphasis
added
explicitly
found
ambiguity
concerning
whether
state
intended
rely
procedural
default
references
long
interpreted
requiring
long
applied
cases
faced
ambiguity
second
opinion
caldwell
noted
mississippi
consistently
applied
procedural
bar
capital
cases
caldwell
citation
michigan
long
therefore
characterized
holding
procedural
bar
oust
jurisdiction
opinion
included
plain
statement
eagerly
sought
today
majority
state
inconsistent
application
procedural
bar
rendered
bar
inadequate
caldwell
even
state
explicitly
relied
see
johnson
mississippi
supra
caldwell
interpreted
require
application
long
plain
statement
rule
situation
us
plainest
possible
statement
deprived
us
jurisdiction
caldwell
remain
convinced
reasoning
michigan
long
extend
situation
doubt
whether
state
intended
rely
procedural
bar
ambiguity
long
concerning
whether
bar
independent
federal
law
facial
ambiguities
relate
solely
whether
state
invoke
procedural
bar
resolved
uncritically
favor
federal
review
ii
even
majority
correct
concluding
judgment
illinois
appellate
reviewable
michigan
long
errs
concluding
federal
habeas
review
must
also
available
equivalence
majority
finds
direct
collateral
review
appears
based
two
arguments
first
majority
asserts
wainwright
sykes
made
clear
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
applies
federal
habeas
ante
second
argues
substantial
benefits
extending
michigan
long
habeas
context
outweigh
state
interests
may
burdened
applying
long
context
neither
argument
persuasive
far
supporting
majority
reflexive
extension
long
habeas
cases
wainwright
sykes
made
clear
exhaustive
review
precedents
adequate
independent
state
ground
doctrine
apply
habeas
context
manner
suggested
today
sykes
noted
decision
fay
noia
explicitly
divorced
doctrines
governing
appellate
jurisdiction
governing
power
federal
courts
entertain
habeas
corpus
applications
wainwright
sykes
supra
fay
noia
view
took
habeas
corpus
statute
fay
state
reliance
procedural
rule
even
sufficient
preclude
direct
review
judgment
prevent
federal
habeas
considering
underlying
constitutional
claim
matter
comity
recognized
principle
habeas
review
denied
applicant
ha
deliberately
orderly
procedure
state
courts
ha
forfeited
state
remedies
decision
sykes
placed
limits
expansive
regime
fay
noia
reaffirmed
comity
federalism
principles
control
weight
federal
habeas
accord
state
procedural
default
constitutional
concerns
mechanical
application
doctrines
governing
appellate
jurisdiction
formed
basis
holding
state
procedural
default
preclude
federal
habeas
review
unless
applicant
shows
cause
failing
comply
state
rule
actual
prejudice
resulting
alleged
constitutional
violation
indeed
majority
reaffirmation
authority
federal
courts
grant
habeas
relief
notwithstanding
procedural
default
showing
cause
prejudice
belies
facile
equivalence
direct
collateral
review
significance
sykes
case
nothing
adequate
independent
state
grounds
principles
governing
relationship
federal
state
courts
become
essential
part
judicial
federalism
decision
honor
state
procedural
defaults
habeas
cases
intended
accord
appropriate
respect
sovereignty
federal
system
ulster
county
allen
determination
state
intend
rely
procedural
default
must
made
deference
state
sovereignty
motivates
willingness
honor
procedural
rules
first
place
majority
second
argument
extending
michigan
long
habeas
context
seems
acknowledge
much
least
purports
guided
principles
federalism
comity
informed
analysis
ante
majority
perfunctory
discussion
principles
however
inadequate
justify
view
extending
long
burden
state
interests
minimally
ante
producing
substantial
benefits
ibid
conclusions
view
reflect
miserly
assessment
state
interest
extravagant
notion
benefits
derived
extending
long
habeas
cases
majority
dismisses
state
interests
positing
state
courts
become
familiar
plain
statement
rule
long
one
may
question
whether
unrealistic
quite
unfair
expect
judges
must
deal
postconviction
proceedings
lower
state
courts
acquire
retain
familiarity
jurisprudence
concerning
intricacies
jurisdiction
pennsylvania
finley
stevens
dissenting
event
majority
improvident
extension
michigan
long
burdens
significant
state
interests
today
opinion
even
acknowledge
emphasized
great
length
engle
isaac
federal
habeas
review
entails
significant
costs
disturbs
state
significant
interest
repose
concluded
litigation
denies
society
right
punish
admitted
offenders
intrudes
state
sovereignty
degree
matched
exercises
federal
judicial
authority
majority
new
rule
increase
likelihood
costs
incurred
often
majority
opinion
also
reflects
little
consideration
perverse
incentives
created
holding
ambiguous
order
ensure
access
federal
habeas
forum
prisoners
whose
claims
otherwise
procedurally
barred
every
incentive
burden
state
courts
stream
petitions
relief
perseverance
may
due
course
rewarded
suitably
ambiguous
rebuff
perhaps
order
finding
prisoner
claim
lacks
merit
stating
relief
denied
instead
requiring
prisoners
justify
noncompliance
state
procedural
rules
contemplated
standard
majority
decision
openly
encourages
blatant
abuse
processes
circumvention
standard
established
sykes
majority
explanation
questionable
advantages
new
rule
allay
concerns
majority
appears
think
state
procedural
rules
arcane
federal
district
courts
courts
appeals
burdened
task
determining
controlling
effect
recognized
however
courts
experts
matters
local
law
procedure
see
rummel
estelle
deferring
fifth
circuit
conclusion
petitioner
procedurally
barred
texas
law
ulster
county
allen
supra
noting
deference
owed
second
circuit
conclusion
new
york
decided
constitutional
issue
merits
brown
allen
far
weight
given
proceedings
courts
state
concerned
district
familiarity
state
practice
favorable
position
recognize
adequate
state
grounds
denials
relief
state
courts
without
opinion
indeed
far
regarding
decisions
questions
substantial
burdens
federal
courts
ante
precedents
reveal
federal
ability
dispose
cases
grounds
affirmatively
desirable
means
avoiding
possible
federal
constitutional
questions
see
pennhurst
state
school
hospital
halderman
ashwander
tva
brandeis
concurring
delaware
van
arsdall
stevens
dissenting
limited
familiarity
local
law
may
require
relaxation
salutary
principle
majority
offers
sound
reason
thinking
federal
courts
dire
need
dispensation
especially
conferred
cost
undetermined
increase
number
cases
resolved
merits
even
assuming
avoidance
questions
considered
unalloyed
blessing
general
matter
questions
avoided
federal
habeas
cases
cite
obvious
reason
habeas
statute
decisions
preclude
habeas
relief
unless
appears
applicant
exhausted
remedies
available
courts
state
either
absence
state
corrective
process
existence
circumstances
rendering
process
ineffective
protect
rights
prisoner
see
granberry
greer
picard
connor
ex
parte
hawk
cases
recognize
requirement
refers
remedies
still
available
time
federal
habeas
petition
remedies
fact
available
state
courts
refuse
entertain
claim
procedural
default
engle
isaac
supra
thus
federal
habeas
courts
must
become
familiar
state
rules
governing
procedural
defaults
circumstances
exceptions
rules
invoked
unequivocal
command
already
requires
federal
courts
become
experts
procedural
rules
govern
availability
postconviction
relief
state
courts
majority
assessment
marginal
burdens
imposed
federal
courts
need
construe
rules
cases
like
one
us
described
extravagant
decision
engle
isaac
supra
strongly
reaffirms
case
two
cases
decided
today
ante
castille
peoples
post
teague
lane
post
thus
belies
majority
assessment
benefits
new
rule
engle
also
indicates
difficulty
even
fundamental
majority
reasoning
majority
premise
indeed
driving
force
holding
appears
always
possibility
state
courts
forgive
procedural
default
irrespective
clear
state
law
may
contrary
premise
credited
even
majority
premise
true
engle
overruled
reaffirmed
forgiveness
always
realistic
possibility
federal
habeas
ever
invoke
engle
federal
sure
given
case
state
courts
refuse
consider
federal
claim
basis
state
procedural
default
rules
according
majority
two
different
rules
guide
lower
courts
consideration
procedural
default
issues
today
one
hand
defendant
presents
claims
courts
state
majority
new
rule
applies
federal
habeas
faced
ambiguous
opinion
may
consult
sources
determine
whether
state
authorized
forgive
procedural
default
decide
whether
circumstances
default
may
overlooked
consistent
state
law
present
particular
case
hand
defendant
never
attempted
raise
claim
courts
state
engle
applies
federal
habeas
faced
case
must
look
state
law
decide
whether
petitioner
procedurally
barred
whether
state
courts
likely
waive
procedural
default
federal
must
apply
holding
wainwright
sykes
concludes
basis
review
state
courts
likely
refuse
entertain
petitioner
claim
yet
obvious
engle
rule
adopted
majority
case
based
irreconcilable
assumptions
regularity
predictability
state
procedural
rules
difficult
predict
lower
courts
faced
inconsistent
pronouncements
soon
require
us
choose
one
principle
nothing
illustrate
point
better
decision
teague
lane
post
petitioner
teague
like
harris
failed
raise
one
federal
constitutional
claims
direct
appeal
illinois
courts
illinois
procedural
rule
issue
present
case
petitioner
teague
barred
raising
claim
collateral
proceedings
unless
fundamental
fairness
requires
default
overlooked
speaking
four
members
justice
concludes
petitioner
teague
exhausted
state
remedies
view
limited
scope
fundamental
fairness
exception
illinois
courts
clearly
refuse
entertain
merits
claim
collateral
proceedings
reason
teague
plurality
concludes
petitioner
case
procedurally
barred
teague
lane
post
without
disagreeing
plurality
conclusion
logically
antecedent
issues
justice
white
concurs
judgment
disposing
case
retroactivity
grounds
post
appears
therefore
five
members
view
entirely
futile
remand
case
illinois
courts
courts
enforce
procedural
default
rules
strictly
majority
explain
fail
see
conclusion
possibly
squared
majority
adoption
conclusive
presumption
contrary
present
case
sum
decision
extend
michigan
long
habeas
context
ignores
important
state
interests
tradition
honor
advances
significant
federal
interest
indeed
new
rule
works
important
federal
interests
avoiding
possible
decisions
federal
constitutional
claims
stemming
overwhelming
tide
prisoner
petitions
neither
logic
precedent
requires
perverse
result
iii
appeals
acknowledged
petitioner
properly
preserved
federal
review
claim
counsel
ineffective
failing
call
alibi
witnesses
however
appeals
failed
address
merits
claim
inquire
whether
respect
claims
determined
procedurally
barred
petitioner
establish
cause
prejudice
thus
secure
federal
habeas
review
vacate
judgment
appeals
remand
consideration
matters
remand
goes
significantly
dissent
rule
majority
adopts
applies
ambiguity
concerning
whether
last
state
write
opinion
rejecting
applicant
claims
intended
rely
procedural
bar
thus
presence
ambiguity
point
logical
antecedent
application
rule
entirely
clear
whether
majority
treats
existence
ambiguity
case
question
determined
adversely
respondent
inclined
revisit
whether
majority
intends
hold
state
opinion
actually
ambiguous
former
seems
reasonable
reading
majority
opinion
see
ante
although
believe
fair
interpretation
opinion
reveal
ambiguity
follow
majority
lead
treat
case
opinion
ambiguous
majority
explains
new
rule
entail
presumption
state
courts
disobey
procedural
rules
plain
statement
rule
relieves
federal
determine
whether
given
case
consistent
state
law
state
chosen
forgive
procedural
default
ante
course
majority
reasoning
assumes
cases
ambiguity
always
exception
state
procedural
bar
least
arguably
applicable
situation
federal
habeas
true
majority
new
rule
tantamount
presumption
state
courts
disobey
rules
however
explain
reasonable
make
assumption
concern
long
importance
rendering
advisory
opinions
pertinent
present
context
procedural
default
rules
differ
significantly
substantive
grounds
decision
reach
underlying
federal
claim
despite
procedural
bar
result
rendering
advisory
opinion
see
henry
mississippi
indeed
recognized
perfectly
consistent
michigan
long
conduct
certain
limited
inquiries
state
law
see
new
york
class
ohio
johnson
although
majority
habeas
petitioner
may
obtain
relief
demonstrating
failure
consider
claim
result
fundamental
miscarriage
justice
ante
clear
majority
reference
relates
solely
narrow
exception
cause
requirement
recognized
extraordinary
case
constitutional
violation
probably
resulted
conviction
one
actually
innocent
murray
carrier
see
ante
fundamental
miscarriage
justice
inquiry
narrow
exception
standard
limited
claims
factual
innocence
prefer
avoid
confusion
treating
separate
test
majority
decision
increase
prisoner
litigation
add
burden
federal
courts
class
cases
likely
resolved
correctly
well
known
prisoner
actions
occupy
disproportionate
amount
time
energy
federal
judiciary
rose
mitchell
powell
concurring
judgment
many
petitions
entirely
frivolous
ibid
year
ending
june
almost
habeas
corpus
petitions
filed
state
prisoners
see
annual
report
director
administrative
office
courts
monumental
burden
unlikely
alleviated
rule
dubious
assumption
state
courts
enforce
even
obvious
procedural
bars
requires
federal
courts
resolve
merits
defaulted
claims