--- Michael Hoover <hooverm at scc-fl.edu> wrote:> 1993
supreme court ruling (_herrera v collins*_,
> texas case) held that
> claim of innocence based on new evidence is not
> ground for
> overturning conviction/re-trial, appeals courts are
> to consider only
> 'fairness' of original trial
That is not quite what Herrera holds. It holds that "mere" innocence cannot be a basis for granting a habeas writ unless there is also a colorable claim of a constitutional violation, which btw, might occur at the appellate level for all Herrera says.
That actually pretty much tracks the habeas statute, 28 USC 2254, which said at the time roughly that to gety a new trial or other relief a habeas petitioner must show either unreasonable (meaning totally insane or completely unsupported) determination of the facts by the state court or misinterpretation or misapplication* of federal constitutional law by that court. (Federal courts won't review state law claims unless the state law or its apoplication violates federal law.) A merely innocent person who couldn't show those things wouldn't be eligible for habeas relief.
*Amond the Clinton ers changes to the habeas statute were to require a showing of unreasonable interpreation of federal constitutionbal law, making habeas law one of the only two places in US law where a federal court will defer to a state court interpretation of federal law that it thinks is wrong as long as it not actually insane.
That's a terrible position, and it made Justice O'Connor, for one, who concurred in the judgment, say that it might be unconstitutional, a violation of due process, to execute someone where therre was truly persuasive evidence of actual innocence even without a showing of a federal constitutional violation or unreasonable factual determination by the state courts.
__________________________________________________ Do You Yahoo!? Tired of spam? Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around http://mail.yahoo.com