Schlup v. Delo

513 U.S. 298 (1995)

Purchase the Printed Copy at bsmsphd.com

Nature of the Case

To access this section all you need to do is click here and register.

Facts

Schlup (D) was under sentence of death. D filed a habeas corpus petition alleging that constitutional error deprived the jury of critical evidence that would have established his innocence. The district court held that D did not satisfy the threshold showing of actual innocence and would not consider the merits of his petition. The Court of Appeals affirmed. The Supreme Court granted certiorari. D's claim of innocence was that the State had the wrong man and he relied heavily on a videotape from a camera in the prisoners' dining room. The tape showed that D was the first inmate to walk into the dining room and that he went through the line and got his food. Approximately 65 seconds later, several guards ran out of the dining room in apparent response to the distress call of Sergeant Flowers. Twenty-six seconds later, O'Neal ran into the dining room dripping blood. Shortly thereafter, both D and O'Neal were taken into custody. D contends that with the video and his testimony that he had walked at a normal pace from his cell to the dining room demonstrated that he could not have participated in the assault as alleged by the two guard witnesses. D was in the dining room a full 65 seconds before the distress call went out but had there been a delay of several minutes between the murder and the distress call, D might have had sufficient time to participate in the murder and still get to the dining room. Neither the State nor D were able to present evidence establishing the exact time of D's release from his cell, the exact time of the assault and the exact time of the distress call. There was also no evidence suggesting that D had hurried to the dining room. The jury returned a verdict of guilty and then the death sentence. D filed a pro se writ, and that was denied. D then got new counsel and filed a second writ and found new evidence showing that the call for help had gone out shortly after the incident and thus along with the tape; D was innocent. Another affidavit was collected after the Court of Appeals denied the writ showing that D was in the presence of another prison official for at least 2.5 minutes on the way to lunch, was not breathing hard and was walking at a leisurely pace and not nervous.