No. 21-6823
Richard M. Arnold v. Reed A. Richardson, Warden
Response WaivedIFP
Tags: actual-innocence credibility federal-petition habeas-corpus reasonable-juror recantation reliability schlup-standard standard-of-review
Key Terms:
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
DueProcess JusticiabilityDoctri
Latest Conference:
2022-02-18
Question Presented (from Petition)
Whether, when assessing a claim of actual innocence, the district court must determine as a matter of fact whether the new evidence is credible and reliable, before determining as a legal matter, what effect such evidence would have on reasonable jurors?
Question Presented (AI Summary)
Whether the district court must determine the credibility and reliability of new evidence of actual innocence before assessing its legal effect
Docket Entries
2022-02-22
Petition DENIED.
2022-01-27
DISTRIBUTED for Conference of 2/18/2022.
2022-01-14
Waiver of right of respondent Reed Richardson to respond filed.
2021-12-21
Petition for a writ of certiorari and motion for leave to proceed in forma pauperis filed. (Response due February 11, 2022)
Attorneys
Reed Richardson
Abigail C. S. Potts — Wisconsin Department of Justice, Respondent
Richard Arnold
Matthew Steven Pinix — Pinix Law, LLC, Petitioner