context: He stated that he would have objected to the method of selection had he believed improprieties existed. This is not a case where counsel inadvertently failed to object or where counsel lacked knowledge of the facts or law to make the objection.
citation_a.signal: see also
citation_a.identifier: 677 F.2d 672, 675
citation_a.parenthetical: no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway
citation_a.sentence: Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway).
citation_b.signal: no signal
citation_b.identifier: 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910
citation_b.parenthetical: "[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures."
citation_b.sentence: Reed v. Ross, 468 U.S. 1, 16, 104 S.Ct. 2901, 2910, 82 L.Ed.2d 1 (1984) (“[W]here a constitutional claim is so novel that its legal basis is not reasonably available to counsel, a defendant has cause for his failure to raise the claim in accordance with applicable state procedures.”); see also Dietz v. Solem, 677 F.2d 672, 675 (8th Cir.1982) (no cause found when defense counsel had available at the time of trial the constitutional basis for an objection but failed to object anyway).