Reed v. Ross

Daniel Ross (defendant) was tried for murder and claimed lack of malice and self-defense as defenses. During trial, the law in North Carolina placed the burden of proving lack of malice and self-defense on the defendant. The judge instructed the jury accordingly. Ross was convicted in 1969. Two relevant cases were decided in the eight years following Ross’s conviction. In Mullaney v. Wilbur, 421 U.S. 684 (1975), the court held that placing the burden of proof regarding malice on the defendant violated due process. Second, in Hankerson v. North Carolina, 432 U.S. 233 (1977), the court held that Mullaney applied retroactively. Before these cases were decided, there were just three cases that would have supported indirectly Ross’s challenge to the jury instructions. In 1977, Ross challenged the jury instructions for the first time in a petition for state postconviction relief, which was rejected. Ross then brought an action for federal habeas corpus relief. The district court held that Ross’s habeas claim was barred because he did not challenge the jury instructions on direct appeal, so he was procedurally defaulted. The appellate court dismissed Ross’s appeal. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari, vacating the judgment of the court of appeals and remanding for further consideration. On remand, the court of appeals reversed its initial judgment. The appellate court found that Ross had satisfied the cause requirement, which excused his procedural default, because the Mullaney issue was so novel at the time of Ross’s original appeal. Certiorari was granted a second time.