Schlup v. Delo
United States Supreme Court
513 U.S. 298 (1995)
- Written by Abby Roughton, JD
Facts
Lloyd Schlup, Jr. (defendant) was a state prisoner who had been convicted of murder and sentenced to death. Schlup unsuccessfully challenged his conviction in state postconviction proceedings and in a federal habeas corpus petition. Schlup then filed a second federal habeas corpus petition, asserting that he had received ineffective assistance of counsel and that the prosecution had withheld exculpatory evidence. Because Schlup had not brought those claims in his first habeas petition, he faced a procedural bar to the district court considering the claims’ merits. To overcome that procedural bar, Schlup asserted that he was actually innocent and that his conviction was a fundamental miscarriage of justice. The district court dismissed Schlup’s petition after finding that Schlup had not satisfied the requirements of Sawyer v. Whitley, 505 U.S. 333 (1992), under which petitioners asserting actual innocence had to show clear and convincing evidence that, but for a constitutional error, no reasonable jury would have found the petitioner guilty. Schlup asked the federal appellate court for a stay of execution pending the resolution of his appeal, arguing that Sawyer did not apply and that overcoming the procedural bar required only a colorable showing of factual innocence. The appellate court denied the stay, holding that Sawyer set the governing standard and that Schlup had failed to meet Sawyer’s requirements. The United States Supreme Court granted certiorari to consider which standard applied to claims like Schlup’s.
Rule of Law
Issue
Holding and Reasoning (Stevens, J.)
What to do next…
Here's why 814,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 46,300 briefs, keyed to 988 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.