District Court’s error was, therefore, fundamental because it affected the central element in dispute, and it was prejudicial because the jury may have reached a different result. Second, the failure to consider the District Court’s error would result in a miscarriage of justice. The central issue in dispute at the trial was the role played by Officer Dombroski, and Harvey may have lost entirely because of the Court’s erroneous verdict form. Though this is a discretionary power that we should exercise sparingly, we believe that finding plain error is appropriate in this case. See Hurley, 174 F.3d at 124 (stating that failure to consider a jury-instruction error omitting an element of a claim “would result in a miscarriage of justice”); Choy v. Bouchelle, 436 F.2d 319, 325 (3d Cir.1970) (<HOLDING>). III. Because we will vacate the order of the
holding that in the case of state procedural default a federal habeas review of the claims is barred unless the prisoner can demonstrate among other things that failure to consider the claims will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that the error must be egregious or othexnvise constitute a manifest miscarriage of justice citation omitted holding that courts may only review claims for fundamental miscarriage of justice holding that failure to consider an improper jury instruction would constitute a miscarriage of justice holding that error in classifying defendant as a violent offender caused a miscarriage of justice