Schlup v. Delo

United States District Court, E.D. Missouri, Eastern Division · 1995 · Federal Courts

Federal CourtsHabeas CorpusProcedural DefaultActual Innocencehabeasprocedural baractual innocencemiscarriage of justice

Facts

Schlup filed a habeas petition asserting several new and successive claims, but the district court had previously held those claims procedurally barred and found that he had not met the then-applied actual-innocence standard. On remand, the court held an evidentiary hearing focused on whether Schlup could pass through the actual-innocence gateway under Carrier. Schlup presented multiple eyewitnesses who testified that he was not present at Arthur Dade's prison murder, along with timing testimony from Robert Faherty and John Green suggesting Schlup could not have participated in the killing and still reached the dining room when the video showed he did. The court found those witnesses credible despite their earlier silence or inconsistent statements during the prison investigation.

Issue

Whether, considering all the evidence under the Murray v. Carrier standard, Schlup showed that it was more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby allowing the court to reach the merits of his procedurally barred habeas claims. A related question was whether the newly presented eyewitness and timing evidence was credible enough to satisfy that gateway standard.

Rule

To overcome a procedural bar through the miscarriage-of-justice gateway, a habeas petitioner must show that, considering all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. In making that determination, the court may consider all evidence, including evidence allegedly illegally admitted, evidence arguably wrongly excluded, and evidence that became available only after trial, while giving due regard to possible unreliability.

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Darren Pike files a federal habeas petition in Ohio raising several claims the district court has already deemed procedurally barred. At an evidentiary hearing in Columbus, he presents new testimony from three bystanders and a transit-record timeline suggesting he could not have been at the robbery scene when the crime occurred.

Under the governing miscarriage-of-justice gateway standard, when should the federal court excuse the procedural bar?

Explanation. The gateway standard is whether, considering all the evidence, it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have found the petitioner guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The court is not applying a clear-and-convincing test here, and the point of the gateway is to permit merits review despite the procedural bar. (Derived from Schlup v. Delo (n.d.).)