[PUBLIS H] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 0- 10 28 3

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D. C. Dock etNo. 1 :0 0- cv -0 03 16 -IPJ -TMP

W ILLIAM ERNEST KUENZE L, Pet it io ne r-Ap pe ll an t, ve rs us COMM ISSI ONER , ALA BAMA DEPARTMENT OF CORR ECTIONS, ATTORNEY G ENERAL OF TH E STATE OF ALABAMA, Res po nd en ts -Ap pe ll ees .

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ (Au gu st17 , 20 12 ) Befo re DUBINA, Ch ie f Ju dg e, BARKETT, andEDMONDSON, Circu itJu dg es .

Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 1 of 17PER CURI AM:

Pet it io ne r W il li am

Erne stKuen zel , a st at e p ris on er, ap pe al s the di st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f hi s h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on un de r 28 U.S.C. sec ti on 22 54 . Bec au se Pet it io ne r’s cl ai m s ar e p ro cedur al ly barre d u nd er s ta te law an d h e h as m ad e n o a tt em

ptto de m on st rat e cau se for-- o r pr ejud ic e fro m -- h is de fau lt , Pet it io ne r can no t o bt ai n re li ef wi th ou t p ro pe rly supp orti ng a cl ai m of a ctua l in no cen ce. Pet it io ne r is un ab le to carry th is he av y

bu rd en ; s o we a ffi rm

th e di sm is sa l o f hi s p et it io n. BACKGROUND

Pet it io ne r was tri edan d c on vi ct edinAlab am a fo r th e cap it al m ur de r of Lin daOffo rd , a co nv en ie nc e st or e cl erksh otto de ath dur in g arob be ry in19 87 . Afte r th e p en al ty pha se of t ria l, the jury un an im ou sl y reco m m en de d asen te nc e o f de ath; th e tr ia l ju dg e se nt en cedPet it io ne r to de ath. Afte r th e jury verd ic t an d s en te nc in g, Pe ti ti on er d ire ct ly app eal edhi s co nv ic ti on withi n t he st at e co urts of Al ab am a. The Al ab am a co urts affi rm ed Pet it io ne r’s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e: th e Alabam a Supr em e Co urt’s o pi ni onis su ed 2 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 2 of 17in Jan ua ry

19 91 , andth e Alaba m a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s i ss ue d acert ifi cat e of jud gm en t i n M arch 19 91 . The Un it edSta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d c ert io rari . Pet it io ne r th enfil eda pe ti ti on forpo st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f in th e st at e tr ia l co urt -- pu rs ua ntto Ru le 32 of t he Alab am a Ru le s o f Cri m in al Pro cedur e -- i n Octo be r 19 93 : m or e th antwo y ears aft er the Alab am a Supr em e Co urt h adaffi rm ed hi s co nv ic ti on an d s en te nc e an d t he cert ifi cat e o f jud gm en t h adis su ed . This pe ti ti on was i ni ti al ly den ie d i n Oct ob er 1 99 4 a s t im e-b arre d u nd er Al ab am a Ru le of Cri m in al Pro cedur e 3 2.2 (c). Th en , inMay 199 6, the st at e tr ia l co urt s etasi de th e o rig in al Octo be r 19 94 ord er an d re tu rn edth e cas e to th e d oc ke t. Lat er, i n Feb ru ary 19 99 , th e st at e tr ia l co urt “ rei ns ta t[e d]” th e o rig in al ord er, d en ie d t he pe ti ti on , anddi sm is se d i t wi th pre jud ic e as un ti m el y

fil ed . The Fe brua ry

19 99 di sm is sa l o rd er was affi rm edby the Alab am a Co urt o f Cri m in al App eal s. Th e Alab am a Supr em e Co urt an d t he Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt d en ie d p et it io ns for cert io rari inJu ly 200 0 a ndJanuary 20 01 res pe ct iv el y . Whi le Pet it io ne r was li ti ga ti ng hi s ap pe al s fr om th e st at e tr ia l co urt’s o rd er de nyin g fo r un ti m el in es s h is pe ti ti onforst at e p os t-c on vi ct io n re li ef, h e fi le d a pe ti ti on fora writof h ab eas co rp us inth e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e North ernDis tri ctof Al ab am a o n 7 Feb ru ary 20 00 . The d is tri ctco urt d eem edth e pe ti ti on fil ed , tre at editas a“pl ace- ho ld er” p et it io n, an d s ta y edpro ceed in gs 3 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 3 of 17pe nd in g t he ou tc om e o f Pet it io ne r’s st at e ap pe al s. Aft er the st ay was l ift edan d Pet it io ne r ha d a n o pp ortu ni ty to am en d h is pe ti ti on , th e d is tri ctco urt d is m is se d t he pe ti ti on as t im e-b arre d; th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t Pe ti ti on er’s u nt im el y st at e pe ti ti on forpo st -co nv ic ti on rel ie f di d n otto ll th e o ne -y ear l im it at io n p eri odin28 U.S.C. se ct io n 2 25 4( d) . A ser ie s o f ap pe al s an d re m an ds be twee n t hi s C ou rt a ndth e d is tri ctco urt fo ll owe d a s t he pe rti ne ntlaw ab ou t the ti m el in es s o f habe as cla im s ch an ge d. Se e, e.g ., Kuen zel v. Ca m

pb el l, 8 5 F ed . App x. 7 26 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (t ab le ); Ku en zel v. All en , 48 8 F .3d13 41 (11 th Cir . 20 07 ) (p er cu ria m). On the fin al rem an d b efo re th is ap pe al , th e d is tri ctco urt co nc lu de d t ha t the fed eral habe as pe ti ti on was un ti m el y (ba se d o n Al le n v . Sie be rt, 1 28 S. Ct. 2 (20 07 ) (p er cu ria m) an d P ace v . DiGu gl ie lm o, 1 25 S. Ct. 1 80 7 (2 00 5) ); t ha t Pe ti ti on er was du e n o e qu it ab le to ll in g; an d t ha t Pe ti ti on er was du e n o o th er re li ef b as edon hi s co nt en ti on of actua l i nn oc en ce. Pet it io ne r th enfil eda Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n a ll eg in g t he un earthi ng of n ew ev id en ce ab ou t h is in no cen ce. The di st ric t co urt al lo wedso m e d is co ve ry an d ad di ti on al bri efi ng inres po ns e to th e Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n, b utth e m ot io n was de ni ed . The d is tri ctco urt d idgra ntPet it io ne r a certi fic at e o f ap pe al ab il it y on th ree i ss ue s, wh ic h a re n ow b efo re thi s C ou rt: (1) whet he r Pet it io ne r’s in st an t 4 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 4 of 17habe as pe ti ti on is ti m e-b arre d b ecau se Pet it io ne r’s im pr op erl y fil edst at e p os tco nv ic ti on pe ti ti on di d n otst atut or il y to ll th e li m it at io ns pe rio d s etou t i n s ect io n 22 44 (d ); ( 2) whet he r Pet it io ne r is en ti tl edto equi tabl e to ll in g o f th e se ct io n 22 44 (d ) li m it at io n p eri odba se d o n t he m an ne r in whi ch th e st at e tr ia l co urt de ci de d t he ti m el in es s o f hi s s ta te po st -co nv ic ti onpe ti ti on ; (3 ) whe th er Pe ti ti on er ha s s uf fic ie nt ly pro ve d h is actua l i nn oc en ce ab ou t the m ur de r of Lin daOffo rdto av oi d t he sec ti on 22 44 (d ) ti m e b ar o f hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on . STANDARD OF REVIEW

Pet it io ne r’s habe as pe ti ti on is subjec t t o t he pro vi si on s o f th e Ant it erro ris m an d Eff ect iv e Death P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6, Pub. L. 10 4- 13 2, 1 10 Sta t. 1 21 4 (1 99 6) (co di fie d i n s cat te redsec ti on s o f Tit le 28 of t he U.S. Cod e) (“ th e AEDPA”). W e rev ie w de n ov o adi st ric t co urt’s d is m is sa l o f a s ect io n 2 25 4 h ab eas pe ti ti on . Ro zzel le v. Se c’y , Fla . Dept . of C orr., 67 2 F .3d10 00 , 10 09 (11 th Cir . 20 12 ) (p er cu ria m).

5

Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 5 of 17DISCUSS ION

Whi le we ha ve be fo re u s o n app eal qu es ti on s o f st atut ory to ll in g o f th e AEDPA, equ it ab le to ll in g o f th e AEDPA, andactua l i nn oc en ce, we wi ll ad dr es s on ly the actua l i nn oc en ce que st io n b ecau se our de ci si on on th atqu es ti on -- as Pet it io ne r hi m se lf s ay s -- is th e d eci si ve fact orforth is cas e. See, e.g ., Roz zel le , 67 2 F .3dat 1 01 0 (c on si de rin g “ actua l i nn oc en ce” que st io n b efo re ad dr es si ng av ai labi li ty of rem ed ie s p rem is edon ex is te nc e o f “ actua l i nn oc en ce”) ; Art hu r v. All en , 45 2 F .3d12 34 , 12 44 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ) (s am e). Actu al in no cen ce i s cr it ic al to Pet it io ne r’s cas e b ecau se ev enif Pe ti ti on er’s fed eral habe as pe ti ti on is de em edto ha ve be enti m el y fil edor o th erwi se pro pe rly fil ed(fo r an y

reas on ), “ [f]ede ral co urts are b arre d fr om reac hi ng th e m eri ts of a st at e p ris on er’s fed eral habe as cla im wher e th e p et it io ne r ha s fa il edto co m pl y with anin de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e st at e p ro cedur al rul e.” Si eb artv. Al le n, 4 55 F.3d 12 69 , 12 71 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). Alab am a Ru le of C riminal Pro cedur e 3 2.2 (c) i s ju st su ch anin de pe nd en t an d a de qu at e st at e p ro cedur al rul e. See, e.g ., Hurth v . Mi tc he m , 40 0 F .3d85 7, 8 64 (11 th Cir . 20 05 ). Ther efo re, Pet it io ne r’s on ly m ean s of ob ta in in g re vi ew of

th e m eri ts of t he pro cedur al ly-barr edco ns ti tu ti on al cla im s

6 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 6 of 17in hi s s ect io n 2 25 4 p et it io n, an d re li ef i n t hi s ca se , is to sat is fy th e “ ga te way ” es tabl is he d b y

th e Supr em e Co urt i n S ch lup v . Delo , 11 5 S . Ct. 8 51 (19 95 ). 1

THE SCHLUP GATE WAY The “ Sch lup g at eway” all ows a pe ti ti on er s en te nc edto de ath t o “ rai se [] a cl ai m of a ctua l i nn oc en ce t o avo ida pr oc edur al ba r to th e co ns id erat io n o f th e m eri ts of h is co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s.” Id . at 8 67 . The “ Sch lup g at eway” is m ean t t o pr ev en t a c on st itut io na l erro r attri al fro m cau si ng a “ m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e” an d

“ th e co nv ic ti onof o ne who is actua ll y in no cen t[.]” Id . at 8 65 . To m eetth e p ro pe r st an da rd , “ th e p et it io ne r m us t s ho w th atitis m or e li ke ly th anno t tha t n o re as on ab le juro r wou ldha ve co nv ic te d h im inth e li gh t o f th e n ew ev id en ce.” Id . at 8 67 (em ph as is ad de d) . This sh owi ng is m or e th anth atsh owi ng requi redto est ab li sh pre

jud ic e. Id . The Supr em e Co urt i n S ch lup s ai d t hi s ab ou t th e n eed edev id en ce: “ [t]o b e cre di bl e, su ch a cl ai m requi res pe ti ti on er t o s up po rt

In addition to the ga

teway provided by

Schlup, a suffic ient demonstration of “ cause for the 1 defa ult and prejudice from the a sserted e rror ” may support fede ral ha

beas r elief f

or cla ims “for feited unde r state law ,” House v. Be ll, 126 S. C t. 2064, 2076 (2006); but Petitioner prese nts only an ac tual innocenc e cla im. Petit ioner ra ised sever al claims in his amended f ederal habe as petition in dis trict court, he raised only proce durally-bar

red c laims here on a

ppeal. He abandone d the other c laims. See United States v. J ernig an, 341 F .3d 1273, 1283 n.8 (11th Cir. 2003). 7

Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 7 of 17hi s al le ga ti on s o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro r wit h n ew rel iabl e ev id en ce -- whet he r itbe

ex cu lp at ory

sci en ti fic ev id en ce, tru st worth y ey ewit ne ss acco un ts , or c rit ic al ph y si cal ev id en ce -- th atwas n otpre se nt edat t ria l.” Id . at 8 65 . In re vi ewin g t hi s ev id en ce, co urts are n otbo un d b y th e u su al rul es of a dm is si bi li ty tha t wo ul d go ve rnat atri al ; an d g ui ltis co ns id ered“ with re fere nc e to a reas on ab le do ub t.” Id . at 8 67 . “ [A] peti ti on er m us t s ho w th atitis m or e li ke ly tha n n otth atno reas on ab le juro r wou ldha ve fou ndpe ti ti on er g ui lt y be y on d areas on ab le do ub t.” Id . ACTUAL INNOCENCE

Lin daOffo rdwas s ho t t o d eath a t a c on ve ni en ce s to re i n Al ab am a jus t af te r el ev enon anev en in g i n No ve m be r 19 87 . Pet it io ne r an d Harve y Venn , Pet it io ne r’s co -wo rk er an d ro omm at e, were s us pe ct s. Pet it io ne r was ch arg edwith c ap it al m ur de r; Ve nn pl ead edgu il ty to a l es se r ch arg e an d t es ti fie d a ga in stPet it io ne r at tri al . The ev id en ce p res en te d a t tria l was ful ly laidou t i n t he di st ric t co urt’s de ta il edord ers di sm is si ng th is pe ti ti on with p reju di ce as ti m e-b arre d a ndde nyin g Pet it io ne r’s Ru le 60 (b ) m ot io n. Ku en zel v. Al le n, No . 00 -3 16 -IPJ -TMP (N.D. Ala . 8 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 8 of 17Ja n. 1 2, 2 01 1) ; Ku en zel v. Al le n, No . 00 -3 16 -IPJ -TMP (N.D. Ala . Dec. 16 , 20 09 ).

W e wil l s umm ari ze the m os t s al ie ntpo in ts on ly. Bri efl y st at ed , Venn tes ti fie d t ha t h e an d P et it io ne r sp en t the aft ern oo n a nd ev en in g o f th e m

ur de r to ge th er driv in g a ro un d i n Ven n’s ca r. Venn tes ti fie d t ha t two sh ot gu ns were i n t he car: a 12 -g au ge th atVenn ha d b orro wedfro m an acqua in tanc e an d a16 -g au ge th atPet it io ne r ha d b orro wedfro m hi s fa m il y . Acco rd in g t o Ven n, Pe ti ti on er b ro ug htup th e id ea o f ro bb in g t he st or e fo r m on ey whi le th ey

were driv in g t og ethe r th atni gh t. Ven n t es ti fie d t ha t the two m enpa rk edat t he co nv en ie nc e st or e atab ou t t en in th e ev en in g, the n l eft , andlat er re tu rn edat a ro un d e le ve n i n t he ev en in g wh en th ere wer e fewerpe op le at t he st or e. Acco rd in g t o Ven n, Pe ti ti on er co ve redth e car’s l ic en se pl at e, retrie ve d ash ot gu n fr om th e b acksea t o f th e car , andwentin to th e st or e to co m

m itth e ro bb ery. Venn tes ti fie d t ha t wi th in a few s eco nd s h e h eard a sh otan d s aw th e v ic ti m fal l fr om wher e sh e h adbe ensi tt in g. Acco rd in g t o Ven n, Pe ti ti on er re tu rn edto th e car , th e m enfle d t og ethe r to Pet it io ne r’s ho us e, an d P et it io ne r di sp os edof t he sp en t s ho tg un sh el l i n abi n i n fr on t o f th e h ou se us edfor bu rn in g t ras h. The st at e o ffer edad di ti on al tes ti m on y to co rro bo rat e Ven n’s s to ry . Coworke rs of Ve nn an d P et it io ne r te st ifi edth atth e two su sp ect s wer e to ge th er ea rly 9 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 9 of 17in th e ev en in g. Se ve ral witne ss es tes ti fie d t ha t the y saw Ven n’s car atth e co nv en ie nc e st or e th e n ig htof t he m ur de r; s om e o f th es e wit ne ss es id en ti fie d Ven n a t the sce ne at a ro un d t eninth e ev en in g a ndsai d h e was with ano th er m an , bu t the y co ul d n otid en ti fy

th e m an . Apri l Harris , who kn ew Ven n a ndPet it io ne r, te st ifi edth atsh e was rid in g p as t the st or e in a car a t ar ou ndten inth e ev en in g, tha t sh e co ul d s ee Ven n’s ca r in th e p ark in g l ot , andth atsh e sa w Venn an d P et it io ne r in si de th e st or e. Oth er t es ti m on y

in di cat edth atth e v ic ti m was s ho t wi th No. 1 bu ck sh otfir ed fro m a 16 -g au ge sh ot gu n. No ev id en ce fro m th e cri m e sc en e p oi nt edto th e u se of a p art ic ul ar s ho tg un inth e cri m e, jus t tha t the sh ot gu n u se d was a 16 -g au ge an d fir edNo. 1 bu ck sh ot . Ina nu ts he ll , Pet it io ne r’s th eo ry of d efen se at t ria l was th atVenn was t he on e who co m

m it te d t he cri m e. Pet it io ne r as se rte d t ha t h e was no t wi th Venn at t he ti m e o f th e sh oo ti ng ; tha t h e d idno t h av e h is fam il y ’s 16 -g au ge sh ot gu n o n t he ni gh t o f th e m

ur de r; a ndth atVenn ’s tes ti m on y was asel f-s erv in g a tt em

ptto hi de hi s o wn g ui ltby framin g P et it io ne r. To s up po rt t he se co nt en ti on s, Pe ti ti on er of fere d t es ti m on y

fro m hi s fa m il y

an d afam il y

fri en d t ha t co rro bo rat ed Pet it io ne r’s ve rs io n o f hi s l oc at io n a t the ti m e o f th e m ur de r an d t he lo cat io n o f th e fam il y sh ot gu n. Pe ti ti on er s tre ss edth atno bl oo d was fou ndon hi s p ers onan d t ha t 10 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 10 of 17th e o nl y

bl oo d fo un d was a sm al l am ou nton Venn ’s pan t l eg . Pet it io ne r at te m pt ed to im pe ach Venn ba se d o n c ert ai n fa ls e st at em en ts Vennha d m ad e to po li ce, am on g o th er thi ng s. Pet it io ne r di d n ottes ti fy du rin g t he gu il t p ha se of h is tri al . Abs en t v id eo tape or f

or en si c ev id en ce d ire ct ly lin ki ng Pet it io ne r to th e cri m e, th e jury was le ft t o d et erm in e an d wei gh th e cre di bi li ty of th e wit ne ss te st im on y . The jury

fou ndPet it io ne r gu il ty andlat er re co m m en de d (b y

un an im ou s vo te ) de ath. Pet it io ne r ha s n ow o ffer edsev eral pi eces of “ ne w evi de nc e” -- affi da vi ts , de cl arat io ns , andot he r m at eri al -- th athe co nt en ds su ffi ci en tl y est ab li sh hi s ac tu al in no cen ce o f th e cri m e in sat is fact io n o f th e “ Sch lup g at eway. ” Pet it io ne r’s “ ne w ev id en ce” f

al ls bro ad ly int o fi ve cat eg or ie s: (1) “ ne w evi de nc e” tha t the sh ot gu n Ven n h adat t he ti m e o f th e m ur de r -- wh ic h a t tria l was th ou gh t t o b e a 1 2- gaug e - - m ay actua ll y ha ve be ena 16 -g au ge ; (2 ) “ ne w evi de nc e” tha t Ven n was alo ne with h is th en -g irl fri en d fo r a few m in ut es anho uror m or e b efo re the ti m e o f th e m ur de r; ( 3) “ ne w evi de nc e” tha t Ven n b or e so m e si gn s o f st ru gg le when in te rv ie wedby the po li ce s ho rtl y aft er the m

ur de r an d t ha t the vi ct im

als o b or e so m e si gn s o f analt erca ti on ; (4 ) “ ne w evi de nc e” tha t Ven n m ad e st at em en ts to th e po li ce jus t af

te r th e cri m e th atdi d n otim pl ic at e Pet it io ne r, in st eadm en ti on in g an ot he r m anwho was wi th Venn ne ar t o t he ti m e o f th e m ur de r; ( 5) “ ne w 11 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 11 of 17ev id en ce” t ha t Ap ril Harri s’s t es ti m on y be fo re the gra ndjury ab ou t Pe ti ti on er’s pr es en ce atth e co nv en ie nc e st or e was m or e equi vo cal th anhe r la te r tr ia l te st im on y . Irre fu tabl e sc ie nt ifi c ev id en ce es tabl is hi ng in no cen ce i s n otrequi redto m eet th e “ Sch lup g at eway” sta nd ard , bu t “ th e Sch lup s ta nd ardis de m an di ng an d pe rm it s re vi ew on ly in the ex tra or di na ry cas e.” Ho us e, 12 6 S . Ct. at20 77 (quo ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ Hav in g b een co nv ic te d b y a jury of a cap it al off

en se , [a pe ti ti on er] no lo ng er h as th e b en efi t o f th e p res um pt io n o f in no cen ce”; a pe ti ti on er co m es be fo re the co urts in st eadwith “ a st ro ng -- an d i n t he va stm ajor ity of t he cas es co nc lu si ve -- p res um pt io n o f gu il t.” Sc hl up , 11 5 S . Ct. at86 6 n .42 . Even if acce pt edas b ot h t ru e an d “ ne w,” Pet it io ne r’s “ ne w evi de nc e” d oe s n otm eetth e

“ Sch lup g at eway” sta nd ardforpro vi ng actua l i nn oc en ce: th is cas e d oe s n otst rik e us as t ru ly extrao rd in ary. Thi s v ie w is inli ne with t he po si ti on tak enby the di st ric t co urt i n i ts ord ers . Abo utth e fi rs t ca te go ry

of “ ne w evi de nc e,” Ven n’s s up po se d p os se ss io n o f a 1 6- gaug e sh ot gu n d oe s n otun de rm in e Ven n’s s to ry th atPet it io ne r sh otLin da Offo rd : Ven n’s h av in g a16 -g au ge sh ot gu n d oe s n otest ab li sh th atVenn us edth at gu n t o m ur de r Offo rd , do es no t es tabl is h t ha t Pe ti ti on er h adno 16 -g au ge sh ot gu n, an d a ls o d oe s n otest ab li sh th atPet it io ne r di d n otus e Ven n’s s up po se d 1 6- gaug e 12 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 12 of 17sh ot gu n t o c omm itth e m ur de r. W it h t hi s “ ne w evi de nc e,” Pet it io ne r ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t s om e rea so nabl e juro rs -- co ns id eri ng th is “ ne w evi de nc e” wi th th e ev id en ce av ai labl e attri al -- wou ldno t s ti ll fin d P et it io ne r gu il ty bey on d a reas on ab le do ub t. Abo utth e se co ndcat eg ory of “ ne w evi de nc e,” tha t Ven n was alo ne fora few m in ut es with h is th en -g irl fri en d a t cl os e to ten inth e ev en in g o n t he ni gh t o f th e m ur de r do es no t u nd erm in e Ven n’s s to ry th atPet it io ne r sh otLin daOffo rd : Ven n’s p res en ce al on e athi s t he n- gi rlf rie nd ’s ho m e so m e ti m e b efo re the cri m e -- atab ou t t eno’clo ck

-- d oe s n otest ab li sh Pet it io ne r’s lo cat io n a t the ti m e o f th e cri m e -- atab ou t el ev eno’clo ck-- o r Ven n’s l oc at io n a t the ti m e o f th e cri m e. W it h t hi s “ ne w evi de nc e,” Pet it io ne r ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t s om e rea so nabl e juro rs -- co ns id eri ng th is “ ne w evi de nc e” wi th th e ev id en ce av ai labl e attri al -- wou ldno t s ti ll fin d P et it io ne r gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Abo utth e th irdcat eg ory

of “ ne w evi de nc e,” tha t Ven n b or e so m e si gn s o f st ru gg le when in te rv ie wedby pol ic e sh ortl y aft er the m

ur de r, an d tha t the vi ct im ’s bo dy bo re s om e si gn s o f analt erca ti on , wou ldno t p rev en t a r eas on ab le juro r fro m be li ev in g Ven n’s s to ry

th atPet it io ne r sh otLin daOffo rd : Ven n b eari ng so m e si gn s o f st ru gg le , fro m

so m e u nkno wn s ou rce, s om e ti m e sh ortl y aft er the m

ur de r an d t he vi ct im ’s bo dy bear in g s om e si gn s o f so m e al te rcat io n d o l it tl e (o r no th in g) 13 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 13 of 17to est ab li sh eit he r th atVenn m ur de redOffo rdor t ha t Pe ti ti on er d idno t m ur de r Offo rd . W it h t hi s “ ne w evi de nc e,” Pet it io ne r ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t s om e reas on ab le juro rs -- co ns id eri ng th is “ ne w evi de nc e” wi th th e ev id en ce av ai labl e at tri al -- wou ldno t s ti ll fin d P et it io ne r gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. Abo utth e fo urth cat eg ory of “ ne w evi de nc e,” tha t Ven n t ol d ast ory to de te ct iv es imm ed ia te ly after t he cri m e -- a s to ry im pl ic at in g s om eo ne ot he r th an Pet it io ne r as be in g wi th Vennon th e n ig htof the m ur de r -- tha t d iff

eredfro m th e on e h e la te r to ldto po li ce an d the n t o t he jury attri al wou ldno t p rev en t a reas on ab le juro r fro m

be li ev in g Ven n’s t es ti m on y at t ria l. Tha t Ven n c hang edhi s st ory aft er b eco m in g aco op erat in g wi tn es s d oe s n otest ab li sh th atth e fi rs t s to ry was tru e o r th athi s l at er s to ry was fa ls e; th ata co op erat in g wi tn es s al te redth ei r st ory be twee n afir stpo li ce i nt erv ie w andtri al wou ldno t p rev en t a r eas on ab le juro r fro m

be li ev in g t he co op erat in g wi tn es se s’s tria l t es ti m on y . W it h t hi s “ ne w ev id en ce,” Pe ti ti on er h as fai le d t o s ho w th atso m e rea so nabl e juro rs -- co ns id eri ng th is “ ne w evi de nc e” wi thth e ev id en ce av ai labl e attri al -- wou ldno t s ti ll fin d Pet it io ne r gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. The fin al cat eg ory

of “ ne w evi de nc e” i nv ol ve s Ap ril Harri s’s t es ti m on y to th e g ran d ju ry : i de nt ifyin g Ven n’s v eh ic le an d s ta ti ng with s om e equi vo cat io n t ha t sh e b el ie ve d i n h er b es t ju dg m en t tha t s he saw Pe ti ti on er an d Ven n i n t he st or e 14 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 14 of 17be twee n t enan d t enforty-fiv e. ThatApri l Harris ’s gra ndjury te st im on y was n ot id en ti cal to or a s ce rta in as h er Dece m be r 19 87 witne ss st at em en t an d h er un equi vo cal tri al tes ti m on y (bo th st at in g t ha t s he saw Pe ti ti on er an d Ven n i n t he st or e b etweenni ne th irt y

an d t en ), wou ldno t p rev en t a r eas on ab le juro r fro m be li ev in g Harris ’s tes ti m on y at t ria l. Harri s’s ce rta in ty abo uthe r te st im on y m ay ha ve ev ol ve d b etweenhe r witne ss st at em en t, h er g ran d ju ry tes ti m on y , andhe r tri al tes ti m on y . ButHarri s re pe at ed ly ide nt ifi edPet it io ne r an d Ven n a s b ei ng in th e st or e o n the ni gh t o f th e m ur de r, an d the sl ig htva ria ti on s i n Harris ’s te st im on ie s wo ul d n otpre ve nta reas on ab le juro r fro m be li ev in g Harris ’s te st im on y at t ria l. W it h t hi s “ ne w evi de nc e,” Pet it io ne r ha s fa il edto sh ow t ha t

2 so m e rea so nabl e juro rs -- co ns id eri ng th is “ ne w evi de nc e” wi th th e ev id en ce av ai labl e attri al -- wou ldno t s ti ll fin d P et it io ne r gu il ty bey on d areas on ab le do ub t. W e are no t i ns is ti ng on co nc lu si ve ex on erat io n. Whil e th e “ ne w evi de nc e” Pet it io ne r ha s o ffer edm ig htha ve st ren gt he ne d P et it io ne r’s de fen se if p res en te d a t tri al , Pet it io ne r ha s n otoff eredsu ffi ci en t “ ne w evi de nc e” o f th e p owe rfu l k in d t ha t wou ldin di vi du al ly or co ll ect iv el y “ sh ow t ha t i t i s m or e li ke ly tha n n otth atno reas on ab le juro r wou ldha ve co nv ic te d h im inth e li gh t o f th e n ew ev id en ce.” The a ffidavits of non- experts and other “ new e vidence ” off ere d to contend that Ha

rris could 2 not have se en that which she testified to havingseen a lso would not prevent a r easona ble juror from believingHar

ris’s testimony

at trial. 15 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 15 of 17Sch lup, 1 15 S. Ct. at86 7 (e m ph as is ad de d) . Taki ng all th e ev id en ce i nt o a cco un t, we co nc lu de th atso m e rea so nabl e juro rs -- wei gh in g wh atwas a va il ab le at t ria l an d wh atha s s in ce b een pre se nt ed- wou ldha ve fou ndPet it io ne r gu il ty. 3

CONCLUSION The di stric t co urt -- no t p ers ua de d b y Pet it io ne r’s ne w evi de nc e -- fo un d a nd co nc lu de d t ha t Pe ti ti on er fa il edto m ak e th e n eed edde m on st rat io n o f actua l in no cen ce. We see n o re ve rs ib le erro r. Becaus e so m e rea so nabl e juro rs -- weig hi ng whatwas a va il ab le at t ria l an d wh atha s s in ce b een pre se nt ed-- wou ld st il l fi ndPet it io ne r gu il ty, Pet it io ne r ha s n otm etth e “ Sch lup g at eway” sta nd ard . A stro ng pre su m

pt io n o f gu il t i s p res en t wh ena cas e co m es to us at t hi s s ta ge . W e are n otpe rs ua de d t ha t we ar e fac edwith afun da m en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e. Pet it io ne r th eref

or e h as no t o ve rco m e th e p ro cedur al ba r to th e rev ie w of t he m eri ts of h is fed eral habe as pe ti ti on an d c an no t o bt ai n h ab eas rel ie f in th is cas e;

In House v. B ell the petitioner submitted power ful evidenc e that he w as not the killer; and 3 the Supreme Court c oncluded that, with the ne w evidenc e, re asonable jurors would have rea sonable doubt. B ut the Supreme Court still said that case wa s “close.”126 S. Ct . at 2086. Eac h case stands on its own facts. And c omparingone ca se with another require s caution. B ut the new e vidence here seems to us not so powerf ul or of ce ntral importanceto the degree that it was in House. 16

Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 16 of 17we affi rm

th e d is m is sa l o f hi s p et it io n. AFFIR MED.

17 Case: 10-10283 Date Filed: 08/17/2012 Page: 17 of 17