Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part

Smith v. Dixon

Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit

Decided July 23, 1993No. Nos. 91-4011, 91-4012Published

1Concurring in part, dissenting in partWilkins, Circuit Judge

I concur in Part IV of the majority opinion, which holds that all of the issues raised by Smith in his cross-appeal lack merit. However, because Smith is not entitled to federal habeas relief, I would reverse the decision of the district court. Smith procedurally defaulted his claim that the jury was instructed to weigh an unconstitutionally vague aggravating factor in deciding to sentence him to death (his “heinousness claim”). And, Smith cannot demonstrate cause and prejudice or actual innocence to excuse his procedural default; consequently, federal habeas review of this issue is barred.…

2Cases cited65 opinions

  1. Strickland v. WashingtonSupreme Court of the United States · 1984
  2. Chapman v. CaliforniaSupreme Court of the United States · 1967
  3. Coleman v. ThompsonSupreme Court of the United States · 1991
  4. Kotteakos v. United StatesSupreme Court of the United States · 1946
  5. Murray v. CarrierSupreme Court of the United States · 1986

60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.

Showing a preview — retrieve the full document via the Exa API.

Powered by the Exa API