Let $X$ be a Baire space.
A subset $E\subset X$ is said to be of first category if it can be expressed as the union of countably many nowhere dense subsets of $X$. Then $E$ is said to be of second category if it is not of first category.
A subset $E\subset X$ is said to be residual if its complement $X\backslash E$ is of first category.
Then $E\subset X$ is said to be locally residual if there exists a nonempty open subset $U\subset X$ such that $E\cap U$ is residual in $U$.
My question is: if a subset is of second category, does it have to be locally residual?
There might be some counterexamples. I have no idea. Thank you!
I believe a counterexample is given by taking $X = [0,1]$ and $E$ to be a Vitali set.
I'll use $+,-$ to denote translation mod 1 (so really I'm taking $X = S^1$ if you like). Also, let $Q = \mathbb{Q} \cap [0,1]$.
First, $E$ is second category. If it were first category, then so would be $E + q$ for every $q \in Q$. Since $X = \bigcup_{q \in Q} E + q$, $X$ would be first category, contradicting the Baire category theorem.
Now suppose there is an interval $(a,b)$ such that $E \cap (a,b)$ is residual in $(a,b)$. Let $(c,d)$ be any other interval of length less than $b-a$. There is a rational $q$ such that $(c,d) + q \subset (a,b)$. Then $(E \cap (c,d)) + q \subset (a,b) \backslash E$, so $(E \cap (c,d)) + q$ is first category in $(a,b)$. Thus $E \cap (c,d)$ is first category in $(a-q, b-q)$ and hence also first category in $X$. But $E$ is a finite union of sets of this form, and $E$ is not first category. This is absurd, so $E$ is not locally residual.
Edit: However, if $E$ has the Baire property, then Proposition I.8.26 of Kechris's Classical Descriptive Set Theory gives a positive answer to your question: every second-category set with the Baire property is locally residual. In particular, this holds for Borel sets.