Cal v. Garnett

Dist. Ct. did not err in denying defendant's habeas petition under 28 USC section 2254(d)(2) that challenged his murder convictions on ground that he was actually innocent of said charges, where witness at trial recanted his testimony that identified defendant as shooter, and where his conviction rested on said testimony. Illinois Appellate Court could reasonably find that witness' recantation was internally inconsistent and unbelievable with respect to witness' explanation for motive for lying at original trial and for motive coming forth with recantation 15 years after his trial testimony. Also, Ct. noted its recent decision that rejected co-defendant's appeal that raised same actual innocence claim and observed that instant defendant similarly failed to rebut by clear and convincing evidence factual determination regarding instant recantation made by Illinois Appellate Court. Ct. left for another day issue as to whether defendant could ever assert free-standing actual innocence claim under section 2254(d)(2), where defendant was not subject to death penalty, and where defendant had not identified constitutional error that infected original trial so as to warrant habeas relief.