Criminal Law ? Aldrich Legal Services

This week U.S. Court of Appeals Sixth Circuit there was a case involving criminal law in which the Petitioner was serving a life sentence for the 1991 murder of B in Ohio. The court concluded that the evidence he submitted to show his innocence was analogous to the evidence considered ?new? in Schlup. In the district court, petitioner ?submitted four ?particularly relevant? items of additional evidence that, when considered together with the record as a whole, present a compelling case? for his innocence ? (1) the recantation of the only eyewitness to the murder, A, (2) an affidavit from forensic scientist LD stating that B?s blood was found at the scene of another murder, suggesting that B was murdered first and shortening the window of time for her death from between 12:00 AM and 3:00 AM on 8/8/91, as previously thought, to between 12:00 AM and 1:25 AM on 8/8/91, (3) an affidavit from DD declaring that he met with petitioner in New York between 10:00 PM on 8/7/91 and 12:00 AM on 8/8/91, and (4) flight records showing that the last flight from New York City to Cleveland on 8/7/91 departed at 10:40 PM. The court noted that there were substantial differences between A?s 1991 recantation and his 2006 recanting affidavit. The 2006 affidavit explained the reason behind A?s withdrawal of his 1991 recantation ? fear that the prosecution would charge him with B?s murder. Also, the 1991 recantation preceded A?s claim that he witnessed the second assault that caused B?s death. The court concluded that contrary to the district court?s determination, A?s 2006 recanting affidavit contained information that was not available to petitioner as the time of his trial. Neither party asserted that the forensic information in LD?s affidavit was either known or available to petitioner at the time of his trial. The court also concluded that DD?s affidavit, which contained additional information not previously possessed by petitioner, was new evidence. While the flight information was readily available during the trial, without the LD and DD affidavits narrowing the time-lapse between his presence in New York and B?s murder, ?the flight records would not have been particularly relevant during trial.? The State did not attack the reliability of the flight records or LD?s affidavit, and the district court did not find that evidence unreliable. The court concluded that A?s 2006 affidavit was not as inconsistent as the magistrate and the district court determined. Further, petitioner convincingly claimed that the circumstances surrounding A?s 2006 recantation rendered it more credible than his trial testimony or pretrial statements. The fact that A ?had no motive to recant his testimony but instead sought to do so on his own free will, and has not subsequently withdrawn that testimony, lends it credibility.? The court also disagreed that the passage of time alone was sufficient to render DD?s affidavit unreliable, especially since the date at issue was his birthday. The court concluded that the new evidence petitioner presented provided ?strong support? for his claim that he was in New York at the time of B?s murder and undercut the State?s argument that he would have been able to travel from New York to Ohio in time to commit the murder.

Holding that the petitioner presented a credible claim of actual innocence that entitled him to equitable tolling of AEDPA?s statute of limitations and review of his habeas petition on the merits, the court reversed the district court?s order dismissing his petition as untimely and remanded the case.

Like this:

Be the first to like this.

Source: http://aldrichlegalservicesblog.wordpress.com/2012/10/12/criminal-law-4/

transtar 316 william daley truffles truffles alabama vs lsu alabama vs lsu