| Schlup v. Delo | |
|---|---|
 | |
| 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) 115 S. Ct. 851; 130 L. Ed. 2d 808; 1995 U.S. LEXIS 701 |
| Case history | |
| Prior | 11 F.3d 738 (8th Cir. 1993); cert. granted, 511 U.S. 1003 (1994). |
| Holding | |
| A condemned man can bypass the procedural bar on successive federal habeas corpus petitions if he shows that "a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent". | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Stevens, joined by O'Connor, Souter, Ginsburg, Breyer |
| Concurrence | O'Connor |
| Dissent | Rehnquist, joined by Kennedy, Thomas |
| Dissent | 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.[1]
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. At trial, the state's evidence consisted of the testimony of two corrections officers who had witnessed the murder. Schlup's defense was that the videotape from a camera in the dining room showed that he was not the man that killed Arthur Dade. Schlup was denied his federal habeas corpus petition and filed a second petition alleging ineffective counsel. However, he did not argue his ineffective counsel claim in his first habeas corpus petition. Due to this, he was procedurally barred from arguing his case unless he could show that he was actually innocent and his conviction would be a miscarriage of justice. The Court granted certiorari to consider whether the Sawyer v. Whitley[2] standard provides adequate protection against the kind of miscarriage of justice that would result from the execution of a person who is actually innocent.