Legal Definitions - cause-and-prejudice rule

The cause-and-prejudice rule is a legal standard that federal courts apply when a person convicted in state court asks a federal judge to review their case, typically through a petition known as a writ of habeas corpus. This rule acts as an exception to the general principle that federal courts will not review constitutional claims that a prisoner failed to properly raise during their state court proceedings (known as "procedural default").

To successfully invoke the cause-and-prejudice rule, a prisoner must demonstrate two key elements:

• Cause for the Procedural Default: The prisoner must show a compelling, legitimate reason why their constitutional claim was not presented or fully developed in the state courts. This "cause" could be:
  • The emergence of a new constitutional legal principle that was not established or recognized by the courts at the time of their state trial or appeals.
  • The discovery of new factual evidence that was not reasonably available to them or their legal team during the state court process, even with diligent effort.
  • In some cases, the severe incompetence of their state trial attorney (known as "ineffective assistance of counsel") that prevented the claim from being raised.
• Prejudice from the Constitutional Error: The prisoner must then prove that the constitutional error they are alleging *actually harmed* their case. This means showing, with strong and convincing evidence, that if the constitutional error had not occurred, there is a high probability they would not have been found guilty or received the same sentence.

Here are some examples illustrating how the cause-and-prejudice rule might apply:

• Example 1: New Constitutional Legal Principle

  Imagine a defendant was convicted in state court for a crime where the prosecution relied heavily on a confession obtained under circumstances that were considered permissible at the time. Years later, the U.S. Supreme Court issues a landmark ruling establishing a stricter standard for custodial interrogations, making confessions obtained under those specific circumstances unconstitutional. The prisoner could then file a federal habeas petition.

  • How it illustrates "Cause": The prisoner can argue "cause" because this new, stricter constitutional standard for confessions did not exist and was therefore unavailable to be argued by their defense attorney during their original state trial and appeals.
  • How it illustrates "Prejudice": They would then need to demonstrate "prejudice" by showing that without that confession, which is now deemed unconstitutionally obtained, the remaining evidence against them was so weak that no reasonable jury would have convicted them.

• Example 2: Newly Discovered Factual Evidence

  A person is convicted of a violent crime based largely on eyewitness identification and circumstantial evidence. Years after the conviction, a new, highly advanced forensic technique is developed that can definitively prove the eyewitness's identification was impossible due to specific environmental factors (e.g., lighting conditions, distance, and visual obstructions) that were not fully understood or measurable at the time of the original trial. This technique was not available or foreseeable during the state court proceedings.

  • How it illustrates "Cause": The prisoner can claim "cause" because the scientific method capable of revealing this crucial exculpatory fact did not exist and could not have been discovered through diligent effort during their state court proceedings.
  • How it illustrates "Prejudice": They would then show "prejudice" by arguing that this new forensic evidence completely refutes a key piece of evidence (the eyewitness identification), thereby undermining the entire basis of their conviction.

• Example 3: Ineffective Assistance of Counsel as Cause

  A defendant was convicted after their state trial attorney failed to object to the admission of highly prejudicial evidence that was clearly obtained in violation of the Fourth Amendment (unlawful search and seizure). The attorney's failure to object meant this constitutional issue was never properly raised in state court, leading to a procedural default.

  • How it illustrates "Cause": The prisoner can argue "cause" by demonstrating that their state trial attorney's performance was so deficient (i.e., constitutionally ineffective assistance of counsel) that it prevented the Fourth Amendment claim from being presented to the state courts. This attorney error itself serves as the "cause" for the procedural default.
  • How it illustrates "Prejudice": They would then need to prove "prejudice" by showing that if their attorney *had* properly objected, the unlawfully obtained evidence would have been excluded, and without that evidence, there is a reasonable probability that the outcome of the trial would have been different, likely leading to an acquittal.