|
''McQuiggin v. Perkins'', , 133 S. Ct. 1924 (2013), is a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that actual innocence, if proven, is sufficient to circumvent the one-year statute of limitations for petitioners to appeal their conviction enacted within the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA).〔 〕 The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) gives a state prisoner one year to file a federal habeas petition, starting from “the date on which the judgment became final.” 〔 〕 But if the petition alleges newly discovered evidence, the filing deadline is one year from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim . . . could have been discovered through . . . due diligence.” .〔 〕 ==Facts of the case== On March 4, 1993, Floyd Perkins, Damarr Jones, and Rodney Henderson attended a party in Flint, Michigan. The three men left the party together. Henderson was later found murdered. Perkins and Jones accused each other for the murder. Perkins testified that he became separated from Jones and Henderson, but later saw Jones with blood on his clothing. Jones testified that he watched Perkins kill Henderson. Two witnesses testified that Perkins confessed to killing Henderson. Perkins was eventually charged with the murder, convicted by a jury, and sentenced to life in prison without the possibility of parole. Perkins lost his direct appeals and his conviction became final on May 5, 1997. From 1997 to 2003, Perkins obtained three affidavits which he claimed would prove his innocence; however, he did not file a habeas corpus appeal until 2008. Under the Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA), a state prisoner has one year to file a federal petition for habeas corpus from the date on which the new evidence became available. The District Court denied Perkins’ habeas appeal because he had filed the appeal after the AEDPA’s one year statute of limitations. The District Court also determined that Perkins’ new evidence was insufficient to prove his actual innocence. Perkins appealed to the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals where the District Court’s judgment was reversed. The Sixth Circuit held that a person claiming actual innocence is excused from the AEDPA’s one year statute of limitations. The Supreme Court agreed to hear this case to determine whether actual innocence is an acceptable excuse to bypass the AEDPA’s one-year statute of limitations. 〔 〕 抄文引用元・出典: フリー百科事典『 ウィキペディア（Wikipedia）』 ■ウィキペディアで「McQuiggin v. Perkins」の詳細全文を読む スポンサード リンク
|