Ashker v. Class

Citations: 534 N.W.2d 66; 1995 S.D. LEXIS 78; 1995 WL 392273Docket: 18996

Court: South Dakota Supreme Court; July 5, 1995; South Dakota; State Supreme Court

SummaryOriginalCytator Case TreatmentBackward CitatorAnalysis

EnglishEspañolSimplified EnglishEspañol Fácil

In the case of Lewis E. Ashker v. Joseph Class, the South Dakota Supreme Court addressed Ashker's second petition for habeas corpus after he previously failed to raise a Confrontation Clause issue in his first petition. Ashker was convicted of first-degree murder, and the State used deposition testimony from his accomplice's wife, which was later contradicted by another witness. Despite the federal district court initially granting Ashker's habeas petition, the Eighth Circuit reversed it, stating that Ashker had not exhausted his state remedies concerning the Confrontation Clause issue.

Upon filing a second state habeas corpus petition, the court found that Ashker did not demonstrate cause for his earlier omission of the constitutional claim, leading to the dismissal of his petition. The court referenced South Dakota law (SDCL 21-27-16.1), which requires all grounds for relief to be raised in the original application, and established that to avoid dismissal, a petitioner must show both cause for any omissions and actual prejudice from the alleged violations. The court affirmed the dismissal, applying the "cause and prejudice" standard from relevant legal precedents.

A defendant is generally bound by the strategic choices of competent counsel, who cannot disregard state procedures and subsequently seek federal court relief from the repercussions of such actions. In this case, defense counsel did not violate any state rules but actively defended the client. The Supreme Court established that a procedural default's cause depends on whether an external factor hindered the defense's compliance with state procedural rules. During pretrial proceedings, the defense raised a Confrontation Clause objection regarding hearsay statements, which the judge initially considered. However, the state later introduced the statement through a witness, leading to a complex situation for the defense in terms of cross-examination and objections. Although the attorney was aware of the constitutional basis for further objections, he did not raise them at a critical juncture, and the subsequent habeas counsel chose not to assert the Confrontation Clause in court, fearing negative repercussions from the South Dakota Supreme Court. The document emphasizes that a defendant cannot bypass state courts in hopes of more favorable treatment in federal courts, and that an attorney's failure to recognize and raise a constitutional claim does not excuse a procedural default. The text notes that concern over judicial reception does not qualify as reasonable cause for failing to raise a claim.

The excerpt addresses the procedural shortcomings in Ashker's case regarding the failure to assert the Confrontation Clause during the trial and direct appeal. It establishes that the issue was not raised by Braithwaite, who was aware of the omission, leading to the conclusion that the argument was either waived or insufficiently presented. Ashker did not demonstrate reasonable cause for these shortcomings, which were necessary for his habeas corpus petition in Ashker II. Consequently, the court affirms the habeas court's ruling, indicating that Ashker did not meet the "cause and prejudice" standard required for relief. The excerpt also notes that Attorney Alberts had previously raised Confrontation Clause grounds in pretrial proceedings, and highlights Braithwaite's extensive legal experience, including handling over 50 habeas petitions. Additionally, Braithwaite believed that bringing up constitutional challenges related to the "strawman" issue would not have been beneficial, as the appellate court had already addressed it in their prior opinion.