Schlup v. Delo

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Schlup v. Delo
Seal of the United States Supreme Court.svg
Argued October 3, 1994
Decided January 23, 1995
Full case name Lloyd Schlup, Petitioner v. Paul K. Delo, Superintendent, Potosi Correctional Center
Citations 513 U.S. 298 (more)
Holding
The court vacated and remanded the sentence.
Court membership
Case opinions
Majority Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer
Concurrence O'Connor
Dissent Rehnquist, joined by Kennedy and Thomas
Dissent Scalia, joined by Thomas

Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995)[1], was a case in which the United States Supreme Court expanded the ability to reopen a case in light of new evidence of innocence.

Petitioner Lloyd E. Schlup, Jr., a Missouri prisoner under a sentence of death for the 1984 murder of an inmate named Arthur Dade, filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that constitutional error deprived the jury of critical evidence that would have established his innocence. The Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Sawyer v. Whitley standard provides adequate protection against the kind of miscarriage of justice that would result from the execution of a person who is actually innocent.

Opinion of the Court[edit]

The Court held[1] that the standard of Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, which requires a habeas 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 Sawyer 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 constitutional claims.

Subsequent Developments[edit]

In 1996, Schlup was granted a writ of habeas corpus 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.[2]

See also[edit]

References[edit]

  1. ^ FindLaw | Cases and Codes
  2. ^ "Additional Innocence Information". Death Penalty Information Center. Retrieved 5 January 2017.