United States v. Frady
- Decided
- May 24, 1982
- Docket
- 80-1595
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 5,791 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- holding that procedural default rules developed in the habeas corpus context apply in §2255 eases — Daniels v. United States (2001)
- holding that procedural default rules developed in the habeas corpus context apply in § 2255 cases — Daniels v. United States (2001)
- holding that defendant must show cause and prejudice to obtain collateral review where there was no objection at trial — United States v. Lewis Nathaniel Dixon (1993)
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.
Rule 52(b) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure permits a criminal conviction to be overturned on direct appeal for “plain error” in the jury instructions, even if the defend [*154] ant failed to object to the erroneous instructions before the jury retired, as required by Rule 30. In this case we are asked to decide whether the same standard of review applies on a collateral challenge to a criminal conviction brought under 28 U. S. C. § 2255.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (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.