Ronny

1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[112888]

112888 Posts in 8615 Topics by 4618 Members
Latest Member: garrymoore

[Farm]

I would add as an aside that I have problems with the term "actual innocence," which implies a burden on the defense to affirmatively show that Echols did not commit the crime.

Well, you may have a problem with the term, but that is the claim the Defense is raising.

Because petitioner is raising a Schlup-House claim of actual innocence that would trump any procedural default objection, he first summarizes below the evidence developed prior to and during petitioner’s trial.

In truth, the defense need only show that there is sufficient evidence, when considered in the totality, such that no reasonably juror would not vote to acquit. A vote of acquittal is, itself, a finding that the government did not prove the essential elements of the offense beyond a reasonable doubt

Again, this is still a claim of actual innocence.

Schlup/House is nothing more than a gateway through which the Defense hopes to present evidence in federal court which is barred at the state level.

The Supreme Court had previously held in Schlup v. Delo that claims defaulted in state court due to state procedural rules generally cannot be heard in federal court, but that there is a “miscarriage of justice” exception for extraordinary cases where it appears likely that the defendant is innocent.  

Exceptions for extraordinary cases where it appears likely the defendant is innocent.

The aim was to prevent procedural rules from barring what may be irrefutable evidence of actual innocence.

For example, in the case of House:

In direct contradiction of evidence presented at trial, DNA testing has established that the semen on Mrs. Muncey's nightgown and panties came from her husband, Mr. Muncey, not from House

That's a tough act to follow, and the evidence in this case doesn't even come close.

[RonnyK]

You mean I get my own topic? Thanks!

Well, you may have a problem with the term, but that is  the claim the Defense is raising.

Because petitioner is raising a Schlup-House claim of actual innocence that would trump any procedural default objection, he first summarizes below the evidence developed prior to and during petitioner’s trial.

It may just be semantics.  In plain English, an acquittal (i.e. a verdict of "not guilty") does not equate to innocence. Nor does it appear a petitioner really has to prove innocence-- just that no reasonable juror would have voted to convict.

That's a tough act to follow, and the evidence in this case doesn't even come close.

I tend to agree with you.  If any appeal gains traction at the federal level, it will likely be a Due Process claim related to the conduct of the trial as opposed to the "overwhelming" nature of any new evidence.

[Farm]

It may just be semantics.  In plain English, an acquittal (i.e. a verdict of "not guilty") does not equate to innocence.

A acquittal is an appellate decision based on evidence that as a rule is veiwed in a light most favorable to the state.

If any appeal gains traction at the federal level, it will likely be a Due Process claim related to the conduct of the trial as opposed to the "overwhelming" nature of any new evidence

I agree.

The evidence of a constitutional error is the only evidence in the writ that could be considered even remotely relevant.

[RonnyK]

A acquittal is an appellate decision based on evidence that as a rule is veiwed in a light most favorable to the state.

The term "acquittal" or "acquitted" is synonymous with being found not guilty.  As mentioned earlier being found not guilty is not the same as being found or declared innocent.

[Farm]

The term "acquittal" or "acquitted" is synonymous with being found not guilty.

Except in post conviction claims where the evidence is generally viewed in a light most favorable to the state, as the presumption of innocence is gone.