Fay v. Noia
372 U.S. 391 (1963)
Premium Feature
Subscribe to Lexplug to listen to the Case Podcast.
Rule of Law:
Federal courts have the power to grant habeas corpus relief to a state prisoner whose detention violates the Constitution, even if the prisoner has forfeited state court remedies by failing to comply with a state procedural rule. A federal court may only deny such relief in its discretion if the prisoner has deliberately by-passed the orderly procedure of the state courts.
Facts:
- Charles Noia, Santo Caminito, and Frank Bonino were arrested and charged with felony murder in New York.
- In 1942, all three were convicted based solely on their signed confessions.
- The State of New York later conceded that Noia's confession had been coerced in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment.
- Caminito and Bonino appealed their convictions and, through subsequent legal proceedings, were eventually released after their confessions were found to have been coerced.
- Noia did not appeal his conviction.
- Noia stated he chose not to appeal primarily out of fear that a successful appeal and subsequent retrial could result in a death sentence, a risk he considered palpable after the trial judge's sentencing remarks.
Procedural Posture:
- Noia, Caminito, and Bonino were convicted of felony murder in the County Court of Kings County, New York (a state trial court) in 1942.
- While his co-defendants appealed, Noia did not appeal his conviction.
- Years later, Noia filed a petition for a writ of error coram nobis in the state trial court, which granted the petition and set aside his conviction.
- The State appealed to the Appellate Division of the New York Supreme Court (an intermediate appellate court), which reversed the trial court and reinstated the conviction.
- The New York Court of Appeals (the state's highest court) affirmed the Appellate Division's decision, holding that Noia's failure to timely appeal his original conviction barred him from later challenging it via coram nobis.
- Noia then filed a petition for a writ of habeas corpus in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of New York.
- The District Court denied the petition, holding that Noia's failure to appeal constituted a failure to exhaust state remedies.
- Noia appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit, which reversed the District Court and ordered that Noia be discharged unless the state retried him.
- The U.S. Supreme Court granted certiorari to review the decision of the Court of Appeals.
Premium Content
Subscribe to Lexplug to view the complete brief
You're viewing a preview with Rule of Law, Facts, and Procedural Posture
Issue:
Does a state prisoner's procedural default in state court, by failing to file a timely appeal, bar a federal court from granting habeas corpus relief for a conviction based on a coerced confession?
Opinions:
Majority - Mr. Justice Brennan
No, a state prisoner's procedural default does not bar a federal court from granting habeas corpus relief. Federal court jurisdiction is conferred by the allegation of an unconstitutional restraint and is not defeated by a procedural forfeiture under state law. The history and purpose of the writ of habeas corpus demonstrate its function as a remedy for any restraint contrary to fundamental law. The adequate and independent state ground doctrine, which limits the Supreme Court's direct review of state court judgments, does not apply to the habeas jurisdiction of federal district courts, which act upon the prisoner's body, not the state judgment. The exhaustion of remedies requirement under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 applies only to state remedies still available when the federal petition is filed, not to remedies forfeited in the past. The only circumstance in which a federal court has the discretion to deny relief for a procedural default is when a petitioner has 'deliberately by-passed' state procedures, which requires an 'intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right or privilege.' Noia’s decision not to appeal, made under the 'grisly choice' of risking a death sentence, was not a deliberate bypass of state procedures.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Clark
Yes, a state prisoner's procedural default should bar federal habeas relief. The Court's decision makes an 'abrupt break' with past precedent and disrupts the delicate balance of federalism. Noia's detention rests entirely on an adequate and independent state ground—his knowing failure to appeal his murder conviction. This ruling will open the floodgates for frivolous petitions, swamp the federal courts, and seriously undermine the finality of state court judgments by substituting federal habeas corpus for the normal state appellate process.
Dissenting - Mr. Justice Harlan
Yes, a state prisoner's procedural default bars federal habeas relief where the state judgment rests on an adequate and independent state ground. Federal courts have no constitutional or statutory power to release a prisoner in Noia's situation. The adequate and independent state ground rule is a constitutional principle fundamental to our federal system that applies with equal force to habeas corpus proceedings as it does to direct review. By allowing habeas review despite Noia's procedural default, the majority effectively nullifies New York's reasonable procedural rule and improperly interferes with the state's administration of its own criminal justice. The majority's newly fashioned 'deliberate bypass' standard is an unworkable and unsatisfactory substitute for this fundamental constitutional rule.
Analysis:
Fay v. Noia dramatically expanded the scope of federal habeas corpus for state prisoners. By holding that the 'adequate and independent state ground' doctrine does not apply to federal habeas, the Court opened a path for federal review of constitutional claims that were previously barred by state procedural defaults. The decision established the highly permissive 'deliberate bypass' standard, shifting the inquiry from the objective reasonableness of the state's procedural rule to the subjective intent of the petitioner. This ruling significantly enhanced federal judicial power over state criminal convictions and was a key decision of the Warren Court in expanding federal protection of individual rights, though its broad standard was later significantly narrowed by Wainwright v. Sykes (1977), which introduced the stricter 'cause and prejudice' test for most procedural defaults.
