House v. Bell
House was convicted of murdering his neighbor based on predominantly circumstantial evidence. During a complex period of post-conviction appeals, motions and evidentiary hearings, House produced new evidence that he claimed showed his innocence. For example, some blood samples used during the original trial were later found to have been mishandled (spilled), but the reviewing court concluded that this spillage occurred after testing had been done and so the evidence had not been compromised. The Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals eventually denied House's petition for habeas corpus, holding that House had failed to meet the standard set in Schlup v. Delo, which requires the petitioner to show "that it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him in the light of the new evidence." The court reasoned that the new evidence House had produced cast doubt on some of the evidence used at trial, but did not render the verdict clearly erroneous.
Question Presented:
Did the 6th Circuit Court of Appeals err in applying Schlup v. Delo to hold that Petitioner's compelling new evidence, though presenting at the
very least a colorable claim of actual innocence, was as a matter of law insufficient to excuse his failure to present that evidence before the state courts - merely because he had failed to negate
each and every item of circumstantial evidence that had been offered against him at the original trial?
