1148:
31:
269:
petition alleging that constitutional error deprived the jury of critical evidence that would have established his innocence. At trial, the state's evidence consisted of the testimony of two corrections officers who had witnessed the murder. Schlup's defense was that the videotape from a camera in
337:
on the ground that his original trial attorney failed to adequately represent him. In 1999, on the second day of his re-trial, Schlup agreed to plead guilty to second degree murder which allowed him to avoid the death penalty. Schlup's co-defendant,
321:, the petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that no juror would have convicted given the new evidence. The Supreme Court remanded for determination of whether Schlup showed this evidence as required by
133:
A condemned man can bypass the procedural bar on successive federal habeas corpus petitions if he shows that "a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent".
1213:
312:
standard, governs the miscarriage of justice inquiry when a petitioner who has been sentenced to death raises a claim of actual innocence to avoid a procedural bar to the consideration of the merits of his
356:
278:
petition. Due to this, he was procedurally barred from arguing his case unless he could show that he was actually innocent and his conviction would be a miscarriage of justice. The Court granted
511:
428:
405:
382:
351:
116:
72:
606:
308:
petitioner to show that "a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent," id., at 496—rather than the more stringent
616:
1218:
290:
standard provides adequate protection against the kind of miscarriage of justice that would result from the execution of a person who is actually innocent.
1233:
1208:
1228:
1223:
1189:
599:
274:
petition and filed a second petition alleging ineffective counsel. However, he did not argue his ineffective counsel claim in his first
1155:
253:
35:
317:
claims. The exception is dependent on the petitioner's credible showing of innocence with reliable evidence. To meet the standard in
314:
592:
453:
709:
1081:
903:
259:
Petitioner Lloyd E. Schlup, Jr., a
Missouri prisoner under a sentence of death for the 1984 murder of an inmate named
339:
260:
952:
480:
475:
1182:
1097:
1045:
1147:
653:
831:
940:
839:
809:
749:
677:
567:
992:
960:
823:
661:
164:
104:
871:
863:
725:
448:
1016:
879:
847:
757:
701:
693:
515:
432:
409:
386:
120:
64:
1065:
1057:
741:
733:
300:
286:
1105:
968:
270:
the dining room showed that he was not the man that killed Arthur Dade. Schlup was denied his federal
1175:
895:
717:
1089:
1073:
549:
192:
1121:
1024:
1008:
887:
685:
619:
558:
1113:
984:
976:
801:
584:
531:
156:
148:
1159:
1000:
855:
786:
645:
633:
540:
188:
176:
522:
435:
412:
389:
200:
168:
1202:
919:
669:
265:
54:
Lloyd Schlup, Petitioner v. Paul K. Delo, Superintendent, Potosi
Correctional Center
911:
180:
67:
280:
112:
83:
256:
expanded the ability to reopen a case in light of new evidence of innocence.
79:
576:
108:
357:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases by the Rehnquist Court
101:
1043:
938:
784:
631:
588:
30:
1214:
United States
Supreme Court cases of the Rehnquist Court
1163:
342:, was executed for his role in Dade's murder in 1995.
352:
List of United States
Supreme Court cases, volume 513
217:
Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer
237:
229:
221:
213:
208:
137:
127:
96:
91:
59:
49:
42:
23:
252:, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), was a case in which the
1183:
600:
8:
1190:
1176:
1040:
935:
781:
628:
607:
593:
585:
20:
374:
372:
368:
333:In 1996, Schlup was granted a writ of
18:1995 United States Supreme Court case
7:
1219:United States death penalty case law
1144:
1142:
710:County Court of Ulster Cty. v. Allen
298:The Court held that the standard of
233:Rehnquist, joined by Kennedy, Thomas
1162:. You can help Knowledge (XXG) by
1156:Supreme Court of the United States
1082:New York ex rel. Whitman v. Wilson
449:"Additional Innocence Information"
36:Supreme Court of the United States
14:
1234:United States Supreme Court stubs
1209:United States Supreme Court cases
518:298 (1995) is available from:
1146:
454:Death Penalty Information Center
29:
1229:1995 in United States case law
1224:Capital punishment in Missouri
1:
1154:This article related to the
904:Youngblood v. West Virginia
254:United States Supreme Court
1250:
1141:
577:Oyez (oral argument audio)
481:United Press International
476:"Missouri inmate executed"
1098:Mesarosh v. United States
1052:
1039:
947:
934:
796:
780:
640:
627:
142:
132:
28:
1046:Prosecutorial misconduct
654:Holland v. United States
284:to consider whether the
241:Scalia, joined by Thomas
45:Decided January 23, 1995
953:Bishop v. United States
840:United States v. Bagley
832:California v. Trombetta
810:Giglio v. United States
329:Subsequent developments
961:Dusky v. United States
824:United States v. Agurs
662:Leary v. United States
43:Argued October 3, 1994
1017:Sell v. United States
880:United States v. Ruiz
848:Arizona v. Youngblood
750:Sullivan v. Louisiana
694:Patterson v. New York
678:Cool v. United States
993:Medina v. California
718:Sandstrom v. Montana
294:Opinion of the Court
78:115 S. Ct. 851; 130
872:Strickler v. Greene
864:Wood v. Bartholomew
726:Jackson v. Virginia
568:Library of Congress
304:, which requires a
193:Ruth Bader Ginsburg
165:Sandra Day O'Connor
1122:McDonough v. Smith
1025:Indiana v. Edwards
1009:Cooper v. Oklahoma
888:Illinois v. Fisher
758:Victor v. Nebraska
702:Taylor v. Kentucky
686:Mullaney v. Wilbur
484:. December 6, 1995
340:Robert Earl O'Neal
153:Associate Justices
1171:
1170:
1136:
1135:
1132:
1131:
1114:Napue v. Illinois
1066:Hysler v. Florida
1058:Mooney v. Holohan
1035:
1034:
985:Riggins v. Nevada
977:Drope v. Missouri
941:Mental competence
930:
929:
817:Moore v. Illinois
802:Brady v. Maryland
776:
775:
742:Cage v. Louisiana
734:Murray v. Carrier
425:Murray v. Carrier
402:Sawyer v. Whitley
319:Murray v. Carrier
301:Murray v. Carrier
287:Sawyer v. Whitley
245:
244:
149:William Rehnquist
1241:
1192:
1185:
1178:
1150:
1143:
1106:Alcorta v. Texas
1041:
1001:Godinez v. Moran
969:Pate v. Robinson
936:
856:Kyles v. Whitley
782:
646:Leland v. Oregon
634:Reasonable doubt
629:
609:
602:
595:
586:
581:
575:
572:
566:
563:
557:
554:
548:
545:
539:
536:
530:
527:
521:
494:
493:
491:
489:
472:
466:
465:
463:
461:
445:
439:
422:
416:
399:
393:
376:
138:Court membership
123:1003 (1994).
33:
32:
21:
1249:
1248:
1244:
1243:
1242:
1240:
1239:
1238:
1199:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1139:
1137:
1128:
1048:
1031:
943:
926:
896:Banks v. Dretke
792:
772:
636:
623:
613:
579:
573:
570:
564:
561:
555:
552:
546:
543:
537:
534:
528:
525:
519:
503:
498:
497:
487:
485:
474:
473:
469:
459:
457:
447:
446:
442:
423:
419:
400:
396:
377:
370:
365:
348:
331:
296:
191:
189:Clarence Thomas
179:
177:Anthony Kennedy
167:
157:John P. Stevens
87:
44:
38:
19:
12:
11:
5:
1247:
1245:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1226:
1221:
1216:
1211:
1201:
1200:
1195:
1194:
1187:
1180:
1172:
1169:
1168:
1151:
1134:
1133:
1130:
1129:
1127:
1126:
1118:
1110:
1102:
1094:
1090:White v. Ragen
1086:
1078:
1074:Pyle v. Kansas
1070:
1062:
1053:
1050:
1049:
1044:
1037:
1036:
1033:
1032:
1030:
1029:
1021:
1013:
1005:
997:
989:
981:
973:
965:
957:
948:
945:
944:
939:
932:
931:
928:
927:
925:
924:
916:
908:
900:
892:
884:
876:
868:
860:
852:
844:
836:
828:
820:
814:
806:
797:
794:
793:
785:
778:
777:
774:
773:
771:
770:
766:Schlup v. Delo
762:
754:
746:
738:
730:
722:
714:
706:
698:
690:
682:
674:
666:
658:
650:
641:
638:
637:
632:
625:
624:
615:United States
614:
612:
611:
604:
597:
589:
583:
582:
550:Google Scholar
508:Schlup v. Delo
502:
501:External links
499:
496:
495:
467:
440:
417:
394:
379:Schlup v. Delo
367:
366:
364:
361:
360:
359:
354:
347:
344:
330:
327:
315:constitutional
295:
292:
249:Schlup v. Delo
243:
242:
239:
235:
234:
231:
227:
226:
223:
219:
218:
215:
211:
210:
206:
205:
204:
203:
201:Stephen Breyer
169:Antonin Scalia
154:
151:
146:
140:
139:
135:
134:
130:
129:
125:
124:
98:
94:
93:
89:
88:
77:
61:
57:
56:
51:
50:Full case name
47:
46:
40:
39:
34:
26:
25:
24:Schlup v. Delo
17:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1246:
1235:
1232:
1230:
1227:
1225:
1222:
1220:
1217:
1215:
1212:
1210:
1207:
1206:
1204:
1193:
1188:
1186:
1181:
1179:
1174:
1173:
1167:
1165:
1161:
1157:
1152:
1149:
1145:
1140:
1124:
1123:
1119:
1116:
1115:
1111:
1108:
1107:
1103:
1100:
1099:
1095:
1092:
1091:
1087:
1084:
1083:
1079:
1076:
1075:
1071:
1068:
1067:
1063:
1060:
1059:
1055:
1054:
1051:
1047:
1042:
1038:
1027:
1026:
1022:
1019:
1018:
1014:
1011:
1010:
1006:
1003:
1002:
998:
995:
994:
990:
987:
986:
982:
979:
978:
974:
971:
970:
966:
963:
962:
958:
955:
954:
950:
949:
946:
942:
937:
933:
922:
921:
920:Smith v. Cain
917:
914:
913:
909:
906:
905:
901:
898:
897:
893:
890:
889:
885:
882:
881:
877:
874:
873:
869:
866:
865:
861:
858:
857:
853:
850:
849:
845:
842:
841:
837:
834:
833:
829:
826:
825:
821:
818:
815:
812:
811:
807:
804:
803:
799:
798:
795:
791:
789:
783:
779:
768:
767:
763:
760:
759:
755:
752:
751:
747:
744:
743:
739:
736:
735:
731:
728:
727:
723:
720:
719:
715:
712:
711:
707:
704:
703:
699:
696:
695:
691:
688:
687:
683:
680:
679:
675:
672:
671:
670:In re Winship
667:
664:
663:
659:
656:
655:
651:
648:
647:
643:
642:
639:
635:
630:
626:
621:
618:
610:
605:
603:
598:
596:
591:
590:
587:
578:
569:
560:
551:
542:
533:
532:CourtListener
524:
517:
513:
509:
505:
504:
500:
483:
482:
477:
471:
468:
456:
455:
450:
444:
441:
437:
434:
430:
426:
421:
418:
414:
411:
407:
403:
398:
395:
391:
388:
384:
380:
375:
373:
369:
362:
358:
355:
353:
350:
349:
345:
343:
341:
336:
335:habeas corpus
328:
326:
324:
320:
316:
311:
307:
303:
302:
293:
291:
289:
288:
283:
282:
277:
276:habeas corpus
273:
272:habeas corpus
268:
267:
266:habeas corpus
262:
257:
255:
251:
250:
240:
236:
232:
228:
224:
220:
216:
212:
209:Case opinions
207:
202:
198:
194:
190:
186:
182:
178:
174:
170:
166:
162:
158:
155:
152:
150:
147:
145:Chief Justice
144:
143:
141:
136:
131:
126:
122:
118:
114:
110:
106:
103:
99:
95:
90:
85:
81:
75:
74:
69:
66:
62:
58:
55:
52:
48:
41:
37:
27:
22:
16:
1164:expanding it
1153:
1138:
1120:
1112:
1104:
1096:
1088:
1080:
1072:
1064:
1056:
1023:
1015:
1007:
999:
991:
983:
975:
967:
959:
951:
918:
912:Cone v. Bell
910:
902:
894:
886:
878:
870:
862:
854:
846:
838:
830:
822:
816:
808:
800:
787:
765:
764:
756:
748:
740:
732:
724:
716:
708:
700:
692:
684:
676:
668:
660:
652:
644:
507:
486:. Retrieved
479:
470:
458:. Retrieved
452:
443:
438: (1986).
424:
420:
415: (1992).
401:
397:
392: (1995).
378:
334:
332:
322:
318:
309:
305:
299:
297:
285:
279:
275:
271:
264:
258:
248:
247:
246:
196:
184:
181:David Souter
172:
160:
92:Case history
71:
53:
15:
620:due process
261:Arthur Dade
222:Concurrence
115:. granted,
1203:Categories
790:disclosure
460:January 5,
363:References
281:certiorari
263:, filed a
84:U.S. LEXIS
82:808; 1995
80:L. Ed. 2d
60:Citations
622:case law
617:criminal
506:Text of
488:April 3,
346:See also
225:O'Connor
214:Majority
109:8th Cir.
541:Findlaw
523:Cornell
323:Carrier
238:Dissent
230:Dissent
128:Holding
111:1993);
1125:(2019)
1117:(1959)
1109:(1957)
1101:(1956)
1093:(1945)
1085:(1943)
1077:(1942)
1069:(1942)
1061:(1935)
1028:(2008)
1020:(2003)
1012:(1996)
1004:(1993)
996:(1992)
988:(1992)
980:(1975)
972:(1966)
964:(1960)
956:(1956)
923:(2012)
915:(2009)
907:(2006)
899:(2004)
891:(2004)
883:(2002)
875:(1999)
867:(1995)
859:(1995)
851:(1988)
843:(1985)
835:(1984)
827:(1976)
819:(1972)
813:(1972)
805:(1963)
769:(1995)
761:(1994)
753:(1993)
745:(1990)
737:(1986)
729:(1979)
721:(1979)
713:(1979)
705:(1978)
697:(1977)
689:(1975)
681:(1972)
673:(1970)
665:(1969)
657:(1954)
649:(1952)
580:
574:
571:
565:
562:
559:Justia
556:
553:
547:
544:
538:
535:
529:
526:
520:
427:,
404:,
381:,
310:Sawyer
306:habeas
199:
197:·
195:
187:
185:·
183:
175:
173:·
171:
163:
161:·
159:
1158:is a
788:Brady
514:
431:
408:
385:
119:
97:Prior
1160:stub
516:U.S.
490:2022
462:2017
433:U.S.
410:U.S.
387:U.S.
121:U.S.
113:cert
102:F.3d
73:more
65:U.S.
63:513
512:513
436:478
429:477
413:333
406:505
390:298
383:513
117:511
105:738
100:11
86:701
68:298
1205::
510:,
478:.
451:.
371:^
325:.
1191:e
1184:t
1177:v
1166:.
608:e
601:t
594:v
492:.
464:.
107:(
76:)
70:(
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.