## Facts

- Joseph C. Frady was convicted by a jury in 1963 of first-degree murder in the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia and initially sentenced to death.
- On direct review, the conviction was affirmed, the death sentence was vacated, and Frady was resentenced to life imprisonment.
- After years of post-conviction litigation, Frady filed a motion under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 claiming the jury instructions on malice were erroneous and effectively foreclosed a manslaughter verdict.
- Frady did not object to the malice instruction at trial and did not raise the claim on direct appeal or in earlier collateral attacks.
- The district court denied § 2255 relief based on Frady’s failure to raise the issue earlier.
- The D.C. Circuit reversed, applied Federal Rule of Criminal Procedure 52(b) plain-error review, found the instruction plainly erroneous, and ordered a new trial or entry of a manslaughter judgment.

## Issues

1. Whether Supreme Court review was barred because the D.C. Circuit’s ruling rested on an adequate and independent local (District of Columbia) ground.
2. Whether Rule 52(b) plain-error review applies to a belated collateral attack under 28 U.S.C. § 2255.
3. What standard governs § 2255 claims alleging unpreserved trial error that was not raised on direct appeal.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court reversed the D.C. Circuit and reinstated the denial of § 2255 relief.
- The Court held it had jurisdiction because the ruling below was grounded in generally applicable federal law governing § 2255 proceedings, not independent local law.
- The Court held Rule 52(b) plain-error review is intended for direct appeal and is not the standard for collateral review under § 2255.
- The Court held a federal prisoner who procedurally defaults a trial-error claim must show both cause excusing the default and actual prejudice from the alleged error.
- Applying that test, the Court concluded Frady failed to establish the required cause and actual prejudice.

## Legal Principles

- Collateral review under 28 U.S.C. § 2255 is not a substitute for direct appeal; a prisoner faces a higher threshold for relief once the conviction is final.
- Rule 52(b) plain-error review applies on direct appeal for unpreserved errors and is generally unavailable in § 2255 collateral proceedings.
- A procedurally defaulted § 2255 claim based on trial error requires proof of both:
  - cause for failing to object at trial and failing to raise the claim on direct appeal, and
  - actual prejudice, meaning the error worked to the prisoner’s actual and substantial disadvantage and infected the trial with error of constitutional dimension.
- Finality interests weigh strongly against reopening convictions based on belated challenges to trial errors that could have been raised earlier.

## Conclusion

The Court held that a federal prisoner seeking § 2255 relief for an unpreserved, unappealed trial-instruction error must satisfy the cause-and-actual-prejudice standard; plain-error review is reserved for direct appeals, and Frady did not meet the collateral-relief threshold.


United States v. Frady, 456 U.S. 152 (1982)