Smith v. Murray
United States Supreme Court
477 U.S. 527 (1986)
Smith's (defendant) counsel deliberately chose not to challenge on direct appeal the admission of a court-appointed psychiatrist's incriminating testimony (obtained without warning Smith the sessions weren't confidential) at his capital sentencing, believing under then-existing law the claim would not succeed; when Smith later raised the claim for the first time in habeas proceedings, arguing it violated his Fifth and Fourteenth Amendment rights, the state and then federal courts found the claim procedurally defaulted.
Whether, where a defendant fails to present in a timely manner a claim before a state court because his attorney makes a deliberate, tactical decision not to pursue this particular claim, he has shown proper cause for his noncompliance with state rules of procedure and his petition for a writ of habeas corpus should be heard.