Harris v. Reed
- Decided
- February 22, 1989
- Docket
- 87-5677
- Status
- Published
- Jurisdiction
- Federal
Cited 3,033 timesNo negative treatment found in this library
What later courts said
- concluding that habeas claim was not procedurally barred where state court rejected the claim on the merits notwithstanding its observation that allegations “could have been raised [on] direct appeal” — James William Riley v. Stanley W. Taylor M. Jane Brady (2001)
- holding that the adequate and independent state ground doctrine prohibits consideration of federal claims on either direct or habeas review if state court’s decision clearly and expressly states that its judgment rests on a state procedural bar — State v. Preciose (1992)
- holding that a federal habeas court may not review a claim when a state court has declined to consider its merits on the basis of an adequate and independent state procedural rule — Andrew Lavern Smith v. Michael Moore, Commissioner, South Carolina Department of Corrections Charles Condon, Attorney General, South Carolina (1998)
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 Blackmun delivered the opinion of the Court.
In this case, we consider whether the ‘“plain statement’ rule” of Michigan v. Long, 463 U. S. 1032, 1042, and n. 7 (1983), applies in a case on federal habeas review as well as in a case on direct review in this Court. We hold that it does.
I
Statutes cited
Cite this
Harris v. Reed, 489 U.S. 255 (1989)Read the full opinion
Free account needed
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.