## Facts

- In 1942, Albert Noia and two co-defendants were convicted in New York of felony murder arising from a robbery and were sentenced to life imprisonment.
- The prosecution relied heavily on confessions the defendants claimed were coerced by police.
- Noia did not take a direct appeal from his conviction; his co-defendants did.
- In 1958, the co-defendants obtained reversals when state appellate courts found their confessions coerced and constitutionally inadmissible.
- After about 16 years in prison, Noia filed a federal habeas corpus petition alleging his confession was likewise coerced in violation of the Fourteenth Amendment’s Due Process Clause.
- The federal district court found the confession coerced and granted habeas relief.
- The Second Circuit reversed, holding habeas relief unavailable because Noia had forfeited review by deliberately bypassing state appellate remedies.

## Issues

1. Whether federal courts have statutory power to grant habeas relief to a state prisoner alleging a federal constitutional violation despite the prisoner’s failure to pursue a direct state appeal.
2. Whether a prisoner’s failure to use available state procedures bars federal habeas relief as a matter of law, or only upon a showing of a knowing and intentional “deliberate bypass.”
3. Whether, on these facts, Noia’s failure to appeal constituted a deliberate bypass warranting denial of habeas relief.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Second Circuit and reinstated the district court’s grant of habeas corpus.
- The Court held that federal habeas jurisdiction is not defeated by a state prisoner’s failure to take a direct appeal when no state remedy remains available.
- The Court held that a federal habeas court may deny relief for procedural default only where the prisoner deliberately bypassed state procedures through a knowing, considered choice.
- The Court concluded Noia did not deliberately bypass state remedies; his decision not to appeal was driven by a realistic fear of facing the death penalty on retrial.
- Dissenting Justices would have treated the failure to appeal as a bar, stressing comity, federalism, and finality.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas corpus extends to state prisoners “in custody in violation of the Constitution or laws or treaties of the United States,” and is not jurisdictionally barred by an earlier failure to appeal.
- Exhaustion under 28 U.S.C. § 2254 is satisfied when no state corrective process remains available, even if unavailability results from lapse of time to appeal.
- Procedural default operates as an equitable, discretionary consideration; it is not an automatic forfeiture of federal habeas review.
- A federal habeas court may deny relief for default only upon a showing akin to waiver: an intentional relinquishment or abandonment of a known right, reflected in a deliberate bypass of orderly state procedures.
- Where the petitioner’s failure to pursue state review was not a knowing, tactical choice, federal courts may reach the merits and grant relief for a proven constitutional violation.

## Conclusion

Fay v. Noia held that a state prisoner’s failure to take a direct appeal does not automatically preclude federal habeas relief; federal courts retain power to grant the writ unless the petitioner knowingly and intentionally bypassed state procedures, and Noia’s failure to appeal did not meet that standard.


Fay v. Noia, 372 U.S. 391 (1963)