Rose v. Lundy

455 U.S. 509 (1982)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

D was convicted on charges of rape and crime against nature. The convictions were appealed and affirmed in the state courts. D subsequently filed a petition in Federal District Court under 28 U.S.C. § 2254, alleging four grounds for relief: (1) that he had been denied the right to confrontation because the trial court limited the defense counsel's questioning of the victim; (2) that he had been denied the right to a fair trial because the prosecuting attorney stated that the respondent had a violent character; (3) that he had been denied the right to a fair trial because the prosecutor improperly remarked in his closing argument that the State's evidence was uncontradicted; and (4) that the trial judge improperly instructed the jury that every witness is presumed to swear the truth. The District Court concluded that it could not consider claims three and four 'in the constitutional framework' because the respondent had not exhausted his state remedies for those grounds. The court nevertheless stated that 'in assessing the atmosphere of the cause taken as a whole, these items may be referred to collaterally.' The District Court considered several instances of prosecutorial misconduct never challenged in the state trial or appellate courts, or even raised in the respondent's habeas petition. The Sixth Circuit affirmed. P urges this Court to apply a 'total exhaustion' rule requiring district courts to dismiss every habeas corpus petition that contains both exhausted and unexhausted claims.