Wednesday, January 11, 2006
From On the Docket at Northwestern University
House, Paul Gregory v. Bell, Ricky (warden)
Appealed From: 6th Circuit Court of Appeals (Oct. 6, 2004)
Oral Argument: 01-11-06
Subject: Capital case, habeas corpus, innocence
Questions presented: (1) Did the majority below err in applying the Supreme Court's decision in Schlup v. Delo to hold that petitioner's compelling new evidence, though presenting at the very least a colorable claim of actual innocence, was as a matter of law insufficient to excuse his failure to present that evidence before the state courts - merely because he had failed to negate each and every item of circumstantial evidence that had been offered against him at the original trial? (2) What constitutes a "truly persuasive showing of actual innocence" pursuant to Herrera v. Collins sufficient to warrant freestanding habeas relief?
More here. [Mark Godsey]