Procedural default

This article may need to be wikified to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. Please help by adding relevant internal links, or by improving the article's layout. (October 2010) Click [show] on right for more details. No reason has been cited for the Wikify tag on this article.You can insert a reason using the |reason= parameter, like this: {{Wikify|reason=Your reason here}} Please replace HTML markup with wiki markup where appropriate. Add wikilinks. Where appropriate, make links to other articles by putting "[[" and "]]" on either side of relevant words (see WP:LINK for more information) and check that your links work as expected. Please do not link terms that most readers are familiar with, such as common occupations, well-known geographical terms, and everyday items. Format the lead. Create or improve the lead paragraph. Arrange section headers as described at Wikipedia:Guide to layout. Add an infobox if it is appropriate for the article. Clean up / format the references and footnotes, using citation templates when appropriate. Remove this tag.

This article may require cleanup to meet Wikipedia's quality standards. No cleanup reason specified. Please add a |reason= parameter to this template. Please help improve this article if you can. The talk page may contain suggestions. (May 2008)

Procedural default is a concept in American Federal Courts law that requires a state prisoner seeking a writ of Habeas Corpus in federal court to have "present[ed] his federal law argument to the state courts [on direct review] in compliance with state procedural rules. Failure to do so will bar any attempt to present that argument to the federal courts on collateral review. A petitioner may evade this bar only by showing 'cause' and 'prejudice' for the default -- that is, by stating a good reason for not presenting the federal claim to the state courts, and by showing that the federal error worked to the petitioner's 'actual and substantial disadvantage.'" Ernest Young, Institutional Settlement in a Globalizing Judicial System, 54 Duke L. J. 1143, 1166 (2005) (footnotes omitted).

This legal term article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it. v t e