Engle v. Isaac
- Decided
- June 21, 1982
- Docket
- 80-1430
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,714 timesOverruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified)Possible negative treatment: overruled in part on other grounds (not yet verified) · Brinkley v. Houk
What later courts said
- holding that purportedly novel claim is not cause for procedural default where “other defense counsel have perceived and litigated that claim” — United States v. Thorn (2011)
- holding that failure to comply with state contemporaneous objection rule bars federal review absent a showing of cause and prejudice — Paul Lawrence Kendall v. Army Board for Correction of Military Records (1993)
- holding that a reasonable basis was available to counsel after Winship to challenge jury instruction on proper burdens, and thus waiver was unexcused — State v. Adams (2008)
Each line is a later court’s own words about this case, not a summary. Read the opinion before relying on it.
How the opinion begins
Justice O’Connor delivered the opinion of the Court.
In Wainwright v. Sykes, 433 U. S. 72 (1977), we held that a state prisoner, barred by procedural default from raising a constitutional claim on direct appeal, could not litigate that claim in a § 2254 habeas corpus[1] proceeding without showing cause for and actual prejudice from the default. Applying the principle of Sykes to these cases, we conclude that respondents, who failed to comply with an Ohio rule mandating contemporaneous objections to jury instructions, may not challenge the constitutionality of those instructions in a federal habeas proceeding.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Engle v. Isaac, 456 U.S. 107 (1982)Read the full opinion
Reading the library on this site uses your account’s daily calls, the same as the connector and the API. The Free plan needs no card. Calls a day on each plan.