The decision Herrera v. Collins

1 decision

1.1 rehnquist s majority opinion
1.2 o connor s concurring opinion
1.3 scalia s concurring opinion
1.4 blackmun s dissent

the decision

two questions presented supreme court s review:

rehnquist s majority opinion

chief justice william rehnquist’s majority opinion held claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence did not state ground federal habeas relief. herrera had claimed that, because new evidence demonstrated innocence, execution violate eighth amendment’s ban on cruel , unusual punishment applied states through fourteenth amendment. rehnquist’s opinion noted “[f]ew rulings more disruptive of our federal system provide federal habeas review of freestanding claims of actual innocence.” rehnquist’s opinion, although not explicitly holding eighth amendment not prohibit executing innocent person, emphasized herrera not raising constitutional violation. in discussing relief herrera entitled succeed on claim of “actual innocence,” rehnquist wrote:

were petitioner satisfy dissent s ‘probable innocence’ standard…the district court presumably required grant conditional order of relief, in effect require state retry petitioner 10 years after first trial, not because of constitutional violation had occurred @ first trial, because of belief in light of petitioner s new-found evidence jury might find him not guilty @ second trial.

rehnquist’s opinion held texas courts’ refusal consider herrera’s newly discovered evidence did not violate due process , suggested herrera file clemency petition texas board of pardon , paroles.

o connor s concurring opinion

justice o connor wrote concurring opinion. although joined majority opinion, in concurring opinion, o connor wrote execution of legally , factually innocent person constitutionally intolerable event. dispositive justice o connor, however, [herrera was] not innocent in sense of word. o connor took position herrera not legally , factually innocent because tried before jury of peers, full panoply of protections our constitution affords criminal defendants. @ conclusion of trial, jury found [herrera] guilty beyond reasonable doubt. o connor reiterated majority s conclusion execution of innocent person not unconstitutional assuming there no constitutional issue raised:

consequently, issue before not whether state can execute innocent. is, court notes, whether convicted , therefore legally guilty person constitutionally entitled yet judicial proceeding in adjudicate guilt anew, 10 years after conviction, notwithstanding failure demonstrate constitutional error infected trial.

o connor concluded asserting majority did not hold constitution permits execution of innocent person.

scalia s concurring opinion

antonin scalia joined majority, added in passing found no basis, either in constitution or in case law, conclude executing innocent duly convicted defendant violate eighth amendment. sharply criticized dissenting justices appeal conscience:

if system has been in place 200 years (and remains approved) shocks dissenters consciences … perhaps should doubt calibration of consciences, or, better still, usefulness of conscience shocking legal test.

blackmun s dissent

justice blackmun, joined justices stevens , souter, dissented. blackmun believed [n]othing more contrary contemporary standards of decency or more shocking conscience execute person innocent. blackmun have remanded case district court determination whether hearing should held , resolve merits of herrera s claim of actual innocence.

chastising majority circumspection, blackmun wrote, being asked decide whether constitution forbids execution of person has been validly convicted , sentenced, who, nonetheless, can prove innocence newly discovered evidence, , took note of state of texas astonishing protestation contrary.

blackmun argued majority s concern new trial being less reliable original trial missed point. question not whether new trial more reliable first trial; whether, in light of new evidence, first trial sufficiently reliable allow state execute herrera. blackmun have held in order entitled relief, death-sentenced inmate should have able demonstrate innocent; blackmun distinguished lower standard of probable reasonable doubt, applied procedural default issues.