## Facts

- Clifford W. Carrier, a Virginia prisoner, was convicted in state court of rape and abduction.
- Before trial, defense counsel sought discovery of the victim’s statements to police describing the assailants, their vehicle, and the rape location; the trial court denied the motion.
- On direct appeal, counsel filed a petition that omitted any claim challenging the discovery denial, despite a state rule limiting review to assigned errors.
- Virginia’s appellate courts refused relief, and the U.S. Supreme Court denied certiorari on direct review.
- Carrier then filed a state habeas petition alleging a due process violation based on withholding of the victim’s statements; the claim was rejected as procedurally barred for not being raised on direct appeal.
- Carrier filed a federal habeas petition raising the same claim; the district court dismissed it as procedurally defaulted.
- On appeal, Carrier disclaimed any ineffective-assistance claim and instead argued the omission was counsel’s mistake and therefore “cause” to excuse the default.
- The Fourth Circuit held attorney ignorance or inadvertence could constitute cause if not tactical, and remanded for fact-finding on counsel’s motivation.

## Issues

1. Whether a federal habeas petitioner shows “cause” for a state procedural default by proving only that counsel’s failure to raise a claim on direct appeal was inadvertent or due to ignorance, rather than tactical.
2. What standard governs “cause” for procedural default, including whether the standard differs for defaults occurring on appeal.
3. Whether, absent cause, a federal habeas court may reach the merits to prevent conviction of an actually innocent person.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the Fourth Circuit’s cause standard and rejected attorney inadvertence or ignorance, by itself, as “cause.”
- The Court held cause ordinarily requires an objective factor external to the defense that impeded compliance with the state procedural rule.
- The Court held the same cause standard applies to procedural defaults on appeal as at trial.
- The Court recognized a narrow exception permitting review in an extraordinary case where a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent.
- The case was remanded for consideration of whether Carrier could satisfy the actual-innocence (miscarriage-of-justice) exception.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas review of a claim rejected under an adequate and independent state procedural rule generally requires a showing of “cause” and “prejudice.”
- “Cause” ordinarily requires an objective external impediment (e.g., official interference or a claim’s factual or legal basis not reasonably available).
- Counsel’s failure to recognize or raise a claim—when not amounting to constitutionally ineffective assistance—does not constitute cause.
- Ineffective assistance can constitute cause only if established as an independent constitutional violation under the governing constitutional standard.
- The “cause” standard does not vary based on whether the default occurred at trial or on direct appeal.
- Even without cause, a federal court may consider a defaulted claim to avoid a fundamental miscarriage of justice, limited to cases with a credible showing of actual innocence.

## Conclusion

The Court held that ordinary attorney error on direct appeal does not excuse a state procedural default in federal habeas; cause generally requires an external impediment, though a narrow gateway remains for extraordinary cases of probable actual innocence.


Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478 (1986)