People v. Prante

Petitioner filed a motion seeking leave to file a successive post-conviction petition challenging his conviction for murder on the grounds that recent scientific studies had discredited forensic bite mark opinion testimony and raising a claim of actual innocence as well as a due process claim and three additional claims. The trial court denied the motion and the appellate court reversed in part and affirmed in part. The Supreme Court found that absent any allegation that the State knowingly used false bite mark testimony, defendant had not pled a cognizable due process claim under Illinois law and his motion could not satisfy the cause and prejudice test. The court also concluded that defendant did not meet the high standard for setting forth a claim of actual innocence. The court remanded to the appellate court to consider the remaining claims that had not been addressed in the appellate court’s prior opinion. (THEIS, NEVILLE, OVERSTREET, and HOLDER WHITE, concurring. ROCHFORD and O’BRIEN took no part in the decision)