Schlup v. Delo
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
| Schlup v. Delo | ||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
 |
||||||||||
| Argued October 3, 1994 Decided January 23, 1995 |
||||||||||
|
||||||||||
| Holding | ||||||||||
| The court vacated and remanded the sentence. | ||||||||||
| Court membership | ||||||||||
| Chief Justice: William Rehnquist Associate Justices: John Paul Stevens, Sandra Day O'Connor, Antonin Scalia, Anthony Kennedy, David Souter, Clarence Thomas, Ruth Bader Ginsburg, Stephen Breyer |
||||||||||
| Case opinions | ||||||||||
| Majority by: Stevens Joined by: O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, and Breyer Concurrence by: O'Connor, joined by Kennedy and Thomas Dissent by: Rehnquist, joined by Kennedy and Thomas Dissent by: Scalia Joined by: Thomas |
Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995), 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.
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.
