The following excerpt is from Manning v. Foster, 224 F.3d 1129 (9th Cir. 2000):
17 (11th Cir. 1982) (where attorney failed to object to the racial composition of the jury lists because he feared adverse social and professional repercussions, the fact that the attorney acted out of concern for his own reputation made it likely that "cause" existed for procedural default); Whitus v. Balkcom, 333 F.2d 496, 499 (5th Cir. 1964) (failure to object to systematic exclusion of blacks from the jury did not bar habeas review because the failure to make the objection was due to the attorney's fear of "the hostility an attack on the all-white jury system would stir up").
The above passage should not be considered legal advice. Reliable answers to complex legal questions require comprehensive research memos. To learn more visit www.alexi.com.