Federal judge grants unconditional writ in habeas case
Bumping this up . . .
Federal District Court Judge Hunt has issued an unconditional writ of habeas corpus in the case of Robert Hays v. Warden. The federal judge found insufficient evidence to support the charges, ineffective assistance of counsel, and other grounds in support of his conclusion that Hays must be immediately released from custody. Hays was sentenced in 1993 to three consecutive terms of life in prison.
Congratulations to Lori Teicher of the Federal Public Defender's Office, counsel for Hays.
A copy of the 31 page order is available here. The conclusion is worthy of emphasis:
"Hays is actually innocent of the charges against him. Were it possible, the court would grant his petition on that basis alone. However, that course of action is barred under the AEDPA. Nonetheless, aside from his innocence, Hays has demonstrated with clear and convincing evidence that he is entitled to relief as a result of constitutional errors presented in his criminal trial. Hays was convicted on insufficient evidence. His motion for a new trial on the basis of the victim's recantation was improperly denied. He was denied due process and a fair trial by the actions of the prosecutor and the deficient performance of his own counsel. He suffered convictions for a number of crimes which were never shown to have occurred, violating the prohibition against double jeopardy. His appellate counsel, operating under a clear conflict of interest, failed to present viable, even winnable claims on direct appeal. Cumulatively, these errors resulted in Hay's improper and unconstitutional conviction. . . . . The court will grant the petition for writ of habeas corpus unconditionally. Hays will be granted his freedom. . . . Petitioner shall be immediately released from custody."
Comments
Great job. I'm a little bit puzzled by the judge when he says that innocence alone, is not enough to grant the writ. I thought under Herrera v. Collins, the Supreme Court said that if a petitioner made a showing of actual innocence by clear and convincing evidence, a federal court may grant a writ. Did the law that the judge cite supercede or trump the Herrera decision?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2007 12:19 AM
Thank you for posting the opinion. After reading the opinion, however, I am VERY confused. The judge cites Herrera vs. Collins for the proposition that a free-standing claim of actual innocence (without any accompanying constitutional violations) is not enough to warrant federal relief. When I read Herrera some time ago, I was under the impression that Herrera does in fact give the federal courts the authority to grant relief based on a free standing claim of actual innocence. Am I reading more into this opinion or am i just plain wrong?!?
Posted by: Anonymous | March 24, 2007 04:14 PM
Herrera says that actual innocence is a gateway to overcome procedural problems that might otherwise prevent someone from having their claims heard. Actual innocence alone is not grounds for granting a writ, absent a constitutional violation in the conviction process. The rationale, which I don't entirely get, is that once someone has a fair trial the presumption of innocence no longer attaches. Of course, if you can convince a court that someone is actually innocent, it probably won't be too hard to find a constitutional violation or two.
Posted by: Anonymous | March 26, 2007 08:39 AM
"Herrera says that actual innocence is a gateway to overcome procedural problems"
No no no no no.
Shlup provides the gateway, Herrera hints at the true innocence exception.
Posted by: rothmatisseko | March 30, 2007 12:43 PM