Page:United States Reports 546.pdf/215

 546US1

4

Unit: $$U1

[09-04-08 13:15:19] PAGES PGT: OPIN

DYE v. HOFBAUER Per Curiam

DUCT.” App. to Pet. for Cert. 80 (capitalization in origi­ nal). Outlining speciﬁc allegations of prosecutorial miscon­ duct, the text of the brief under this argument heading cites the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States. It further cites the following federal cases, all of which concern alleged violations of federal due process rights in the context of prosecutorial misconduct: Donnelly v. DeChristoforo, 416 U. S. 637 (1974); Berger v. United States, 295 U. S. 78 (1935); United States v. Valentine, 820 F. 2d 565 (CA2 1987); United States v. Burse, 531 F. 2d 1151 (CA2 1976). This is not an instance where the habeas petitioner failed to “apprise the state court of his claim that the. . . ruling of which he complained was not only a violation of state law, but denied him the due process of law guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.” Duncan v. Henry, 513 U. S. 364, 366 (1995) (per curiam). Nor is this a case where a state court needed to look beyond “a petition or a brief (or a simi­ lar document)” to be aware of the federal claim. Baldwin v. Reese, 541 U. S. 27, 32 (2004). The state-court brief was clear that the prosecutorial misconduct claim was based, at least in part, on a federal right. It was error for the Court of Appeals to conclude otherwise. A second reason the Dye II panel denied relief was that the habeas petition ﬁled in the United States District Court presented the prosecutorial misconduct claim in too vague and general a form. This alternative holding cannot rescue the Dye II judgment, for it, too, is incorrect. The habeas corpus petition made clear and repeated references to an appended supporting brief, which presented Dye’s federal claim with more than sufﬁcient particularity. See Fed. Rules Civ. Proc. 81(a)(2), 10(c). As the prosecutorial miscon­ duct claim was presented properly, it, and any other federal claims properly presented, should be addressed by the Court of Appeals on remand.