United States v. Frady

Supreme Court of United States
456 U.S. 152 (1982)

ELI5:

Rule of Law:

To obtain collateral relief for a trial error to which no contemporaneous objection was made, a convicted defendant must show both cause for the procedural default and actual prejudice resulting from the error, not merely that the error was 'plain.'

Facts:

On March 13, 1963, Joseph Frady was seen driving slowly by Thomas Bennett's house in the afternoon and returned later that evening with his associate, Richard Gordon.
Frady and Gordon then met with the victim's brother, George Bennett, at a restaurant.
During the meeting, Frady asked George Bennett if a hard blow to the chest could kill a person, and George Bennett told Frady that if he did a 'good job' he would get a 'bonus.'
Frady and Gordon drove to the victim's neighborhood, parked their car with the engine running, and went to Thomas Bennett's house.
A neighbor heard a fight in progress at Bennett's house and called the police.
When police arrived, they saw Frady and Gordon emerging from Bennett's front door; the two men then fled, discarding Bennett's wallet and a pair of gloves.
Police apprehended Frady and Gordon, who were covered in blood, and found Thomas Bennett inside the house, dead from a brutal beating.
The murder weapon, a piece of a tabletop, bore no fingerprints.

Procedural Posture:

Joseph Frady was convicted of first-degree murder and robbery in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and sentenced to death.
On direct appeal, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit, sitting en banc, affirmed the murder conviction but vacated the death sentence.
Frady was then resentenced to life imprisonment.
Years later, Frady filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 in the District Court, arguing the jury instructions on malice were erroneous.
The District Court denied Frady's § 2255 motion.
Frady appealed the denial to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit.
The Court of Appeals reversed, holding that the 'plain error' standard of review applied, and remanded the case for a new trial or entry of a manslaughter conviction.
The U.S. government's petition for a rehearing en banc was denied by the Court of Appeals.
The Supreme Court granted the government's petition for a writ of certiorari.

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 the 'plain error' standard of Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b), which applies on direct appeal, also govern collateral challenges to a criminal conviction brought under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 for unobjected-to jury instructions?

Opinions:

Majority - Justice O’Connor

No. The 'plain error' standard does not apply to a collateral attack under § 2255; rather, a defendant must satisfy the more stringent 'cause and actual prejudice' standard. We have long held that a collateral challenge is not a substitute for a direct appeal, and the societal interest in the finality of criminal judgments requires a prisoner to clear a significantly higher hurdle for relief. To show 'actual prejudice' from an erroneous jury instruction, a defendant must demonstrate that the error 'so infected the entire trial that the resulting conviction violates due process,' not merely that the error created a possibility of prejudice. Here, Frady cannot show actual prejudice because the evidence of malice was overwhelming, his trial defense was non-involvement rather than lack of malice, and the jury's finding of premeditated and deliberate first-degree murder is inconsistent with a finding of manslaughter.

Dissenting - Justice Brennan

Yes. The 'plain error' standard should apply to § 2255 proceedings because they are a continuation of the original criminal case, not a separate civil action like a § 2254 habeas petition from a state prisoner. The Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure, including the plain-error rule, are expressly made available for § 2255 motions by statute. The majority improperly blurs the distinction between the two types of collateral review to create another procedural barrier for federal prisoners seeking to correct a miscarriage of justice.

Concurring - Justice Stevens

I join the Court's opinion because it correctly focuses on the character of the prejudice to determine whether collateral relief is appropriate. Although my view on what constitutes 'cause' differs from the Court's, the analysis of prejudice in this case is the proper basis for the judgment.

Concurring - Justice Blackmun

Yes, the plain-error rule is applicable in a § 2255 proceeding. If an error is 'plain,' it constitutes an exception to the contemporaneous objection rule, meaning a petitioner should not have to show 'cause' for the failure to object. However, I concur in the judgment because Frady has not demonstrated that the erroneous jury instructions rose to the level of plain error, as they did not so infect the trial as to violate due process.

Analysis:

This decision significantly heightens the barrier for federal prisoners seeking post-conviction relief for unpreserved trial errors. By rejecting the lenient 'plain error' standard in favor of the stringent 'cause and actual prejudice' test for § 2255 motions, the Court prioritizes the finality of criminal judgments over the correction of errors that were not objected to at trial. This holding clarifies the distinction between direct appeal and collateral attack, making it much more difficult for prisoners to succeed on belated claims. The case establishes that a prisoner must show not just a clear error, but that the error caused a concrete, substantial disadvantage that rendered the entire trial fundamentally unfair.

Gunnerbot

AI-powered case assistant

Loaded: United States v. Frady (1982)

Try: "What was the holding?" or "Explain the dissent"

Premium Feature