United States v. Frady

Background

Joseph Frady was convicted of the 1963 killing of Thomas Bennett after a trial in which he denied involvement. A jury found him guilty of first-degree murder and originally sentenced him to death; that sentence was later set aside and he received life. Years later Frady used the federal postconviction statute (28 U.S.C. §2255) to argue that the trial judge’s jury instructions wrongly equated intent with malice and thus foreclosed a manslaughter verdict. The Court of Appeals applied the direct-appeal "plain error" test and vacated his sentence.

Reasoning

The Supreme Court addressed whether the plain-error rule that can excuse a missed objection on direct appeal also applies when a prisoner brings a late collateral attack under §2255. The Court held that collateral review is different: a convicted federal prisoner must show both "cause" for the procedural default and "actual prejudice." The Court found it unnecessary to decide cause because Frady could not show actual prejudice. The Court stressed the overwhelming trial evidence of planning and brutality, and concluded there was no substantial likelihood a properly instructed jury would have returned only a manslaughter verdict. The Court therefore reversed the Court of Appeals and denied relief.

Real world impact

This decision makes it harder for federal prisoners to win years-late challenges based on trial instructions not objected to at trial. It emphasizes finality of federal convictions and requires a strong showing of actual harm from any unobjected error.

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Blackmun concurred in the judgment but argued plain-error can apply; Justice Stevens joined focusing on prejudice; Justice Brennan dissented, urging wider use of plain-error on collateral review.