McCleskey v. Zant

1991-04-16

Headline: Limits on duplicate habeas petitions: Court adopts a 'cause-and-prejudice' test and affirms that a death-row inmate abused the writ by raising a new informant-based right-to-counsel claim too late, blocking further review.

Holding: The Court holds that courts may refuse to hear claims first raised in later habeas petitions unless the prisoner shows cause for the delay and actual prejudice, and it affirmed dismissal of the inmate’s late informant-based counsel claim.

Real World Impact:

Requires prisoners to show cause and prejudice to raise new claims in later habeas petitions.
Encourages fuller investigations before the first federal habeas filing.
Leaves a narrow path for late claims based on actual innocence or extraordinary circumstances.

Topics: habeas petitions, late criminal appeals, right to counsel, police informants, finality of convictions

Summary

Background

Warren McCleskey, convicted of a 1978 murder during a robbery and sentenced to death, challenged his conviction for years. At trial a jailmate, Offie Evans, testified that McCleskey admitted the killing in adjoining-cell conversations. McCleskey pressed Brady and other claims on direct and state collateral review. He did not press a federal Sixth Amendment claim based on a government-used informant (an "informant-based right-to-counsel" claim) in his first federal habeas petition. Before his second federal petition a 21-page police statement by Evans surfaced and the District Court found a Massiah-type violation and granted relief; the Court of Appeals reversed, calling the late claim an abuse of the writ.

Reasoning

The key question was the standard for deciding when a later habeas petition presents an "abuse of the writ." The Court held that when the government pleads abuse, the prisoner must show cause for not raising the claim earlier and actual prejudice from the error — the same cause-and-prejudice test used for state procedural defaults. Applying that rule, the Court found McCleskey had no adequate excuse: he knew or should have known the facts that would support the claim and delayed pursuit, and the later-discovered document did not excuse the omission. The Court therefore affirmed dismissal of the late informant-based counsel claim.

Real world impact

The decision requires prisoners to press all viable claims in their first federal habeas petition or later show cause and prejudice to raise new ones. It emphasizes prompt, thorough investigation and makes later discovery less likely to reopen old convictions. The Court left a narrow exception for claims showing a fundamental miscarriage of justice (for example, convincing evidence of actual innocence).

Dissents or concurrances

Justice Marshall, joined by two Justices, dissented, arguing the Court improperly replaced the older good-faith abuse standard with the stricter cause-and-prejudice rule, applied it retroactively, and failed to give the parties a proper remand to develop the record.