FI LED U.S. COURT OF APPEALS ELEV ENT H CI RCUI T APRI L 16 , 200 9 T HOMAS K . KAHN CLERK [PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

No. 0 8- 16 00 9

IN RE: TROY ANTHO NY DAVIS, Pet it io ne r.

App li cat io n fo r Leav e to Fil e a Sec on d o r Su cces si ve Hab eas Co rp us Pet it io n, 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )

(Ap ril 16 , 20 09 ) Befo re DUBINA, BARKETT an d M ARCUS, Ci rcu itJu dg es . PER CURI AM: On Oct ob er 2 2, 2 00 8, Tro y Ant ho ny Davi s (“ Dav is ”), a Geo rg iade ath ro w in m at e, fi le d a n app li cat io n wi th th is Co urt s eek in g aut ho riz at io n t o fi le a se co nd orsu cces si ve 28 U.S.C. § 2 25 4 fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on , rai si ng forth e fi rs t t im e afree st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m . Davi s h adpre vi ou sl y fil eda fed eral habe as pe ti ti on in th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co urt fo r th e So ut he rnDis tri ctof Ge or gi a in 20 01 , all eg in g, am on g o th er thi ng s, v io la ti on s o f Gig li o v . Uni te d Sta tes , 40 5 U.S. 15 0, 9 2 S . Ct. 7 63 (19 72 ), Bra dyv. Mar ylan d , 37 3 U.S. 8 3, 8 3 S . Ct. 1 19 4 (1 96 3) , an d Stri ckl an d v . W

as hi ng to n , 46 6 U.S. 6 68 , 10 4 S . Ct. 2 05 2 (1 98 4) . Davi s n ow cl ai m s t ha t h is ex ecu ti on wou ldvi ol at e th e Eig ht h a ndFo urte en th Am en dm en ts be cau se he is actua ll y

in no cen t o f th e o ffen se of m ur de r. W e to okth e unu su al st ep of st ay in g Dav is ’s exe cu ti on , whi ch ha d b een sch edul edforOcto be r 27 , 20 08 , and or de redth e p art ie s t o s ub m itfurth er b rie fs . There aft er, we s ch edul edth e cas e fo r or al arg um en t. Hav in g t he be ne fitof t he pa rti es ’ br ie fs an d a fte r he ari ng ex te ns iv e or al arg um en t, we d en y

Davi s’s ap pl ic at io n. I. RELE VANT PROCEDURAL HI STO RY A Geor gi a jury con vi ct edDavi s fo r th e m ur de r of Sav an na h p ol ic e o ffi cer Mark Al le n M acPh ai l i n t he earl y m orni ng ho ur s o f Aug us t 1 9, 1 98 9, an d fo r two ot he r of fen se s. Th e tr ia l co urt s en te nc edhi m to de ath fo r th e m

ur de r co nv ic ti on . The Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaaffi rm edDavi s’s co nv ic ti on s an d d eat h s en te nc e. Dav is v. St at e , 26 3 Ga. 5 , 42 6 S .E.2d84 4, cer t. d en ie d , 51 0 U.S. 9 50 , 11 4 S . Ct. 39 6 (1 99 3) . There aft er, i n 1 99 7, the st at e tr ia l co urt d en ie d h is st at e h ab eas co rp us pe ti ti on forrel ie f, an d i n 2 00 0, the Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaaffi rm edth e d en ia l 2of

Davi s’s p et it io n. Dav is v. Tu rp in , 27 3 Ga. 2 44 , 53 9 S .E.2d12 9 (2 00 0) , cer t. de ni ed , 53 4 U.S. 8 42 , 12 2 S . Ct. 1 00 (20 01 ). Davi s t he n fi le d h is fir stfed eral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on onDecem be r 14 , 20 01 , rai si ng a nu m be r of co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io ns , in cl ud in g: (1) th atth e p ro se cu ti on kn owi ng ly pres en te d fa ls e te st im on y athi s t ria l, i n v io la ti onof Gig li o ; (2 ) th atth e p ro se cu ti onfai le d t o d is cl os e m at eri al ex cu lp at ory

ev id en ce, i n v io la ti on of Bra dy ; an d (3 ) th athi s tria l co un se l was co ns ti tu ti on al ly ine ffec ti ve , invi ol at io n o f Stri cklan d . Becau se Davi s fa il ed to rai se th es e co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s b efo re the st at e co urt, h e so ug htto ov erco m e hi s p ro cedur al de fau ltof t he se cla im s b y sh owi ng un de r Sc hl up v. Delo , 51 3 U.S. 29 8, 1 15 S. Ct. 8 51 (19 95 ), th athe sh ou ldbe ab le to rai se th es e cl ai m s an yway be cau se he was a ctua ll y

in no cen t o f th e und erl y in g m ur de r. The d is tri ctco urt d id

1 no t ru le on hi s ac tu al in no cen ce cl ai m , in st eadreac hi ng th e m eri ts of h is co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s an d d eny in g h is pe ti ti on . Not ab ly, Dav is di d n otrai se a subs ta nt iv e fre es tand in g c la im of a ctua l in no cen ce i n h is fir stfed eral habe as pe ti ti on . Duri ng th e p ro ceed in gs , ho wev er, Dav is m ov edth e d is tri ctco urt t o s tay th e fed eral habe as pro ceed in gs in ord er fo r

In Schlup , the Supreme Court he ld that a petitioner who makes the re quisite showing of 1 actua l innocence may

be able to obtain fede ral re view of a ny constitutional claim that would otherwise be defa

ulted beca

use the pe titioner failed to ra ise that claim in state cour t. 513 U.S. at 314-17, 115 S. Ct. at 861-62. 3hi m

to pre se nta free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m to th e st at e co urts . In Ap ril 20 04 , th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Dav is ’s st ay reque st . Afte r th e d is tri ctco urt d en ie d Dav is ’s hab eas co rp us pe ti ti on , we affi rm ed . Dav is v. Terry , 46 5 F .3d12 49 , 12 56 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ), cer t. d en ie d , 12 7 S . Ct. 30 10 (20 07 ). W e h el d t ha t Dav is fai le d t o s us ta in a Bra dyor Gig li o vi ol at io n, an d he di d n otest ab li sh a vi ol at io n o f th e Si xt h Am en dm en t ri gh t t o t he effe ct iv e as si st an ce o f co un se l. An d we m ad e cl ear i n o urop in io n tha t Dav is ha d “ no t m a[d ]e a subs ta nt iv e cl ai m of a ctua l i nn oc en ce.” Id
. at 1 25 1. In20 07 , th e st at e tr ia l co urt s eta ne w exe cu ti on da te . Soo n t he reaf te r, Dav is fil edanex tra or di na ry m ot io n fo r ne w tri al , pre se nt in g n ewly dis co ve red ev id en ce i n s up po rt o f hi s m ot io n. Se e Ga. Cod e Ann . § 5 -5 -4 1 (1 99 5 & Supp . 20 08 ); Dick

v. St at e , 24 8 Ga. 8 98 , 89 9, 2 87 S.E.2d11 , 13 (19 82 ) (i nd ic at in g t ha t affi da vi ts in supp ort o f anex tra or di na ry m ot io n fo r ne w tri al in cl ud e “ fa ct s su ffi ci en t t o aut ho riz e th atth e m ot io n b e g ran te d i f th e fac ts de ve lo pe d a t the he ari ng warran t s uc h re li ef”) ; Timb er la ke v. Sta te , 24 6 Ga. 4 88 , 49 1, 2 71 S.E.2d 79 2, 7 95 –9 6 (1 98 0) (in di cat in g t ha t n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce m us t b e so m at eri al th atitpro babl y

wou ldres ul t i n adi ffer en t v erd ic t). Th is ev id en ce co ns is te d o f: ( 1) sev enaffi da vi ts co nt ai ni ng reca nt at io ns of e y ewit ne ss es who te st ifi edat t ria l; (2) th ree a ffi da vi ts av erri ng po st -tr ia l co nf es si on s t o t he m

ur de r 4by ano th er m an , Sy lv es te r “ Red ” Co le s (h erei na fte r “ RedCo le s” ); ( 3) sev eral

affi da vi ts of p ers on s wh o h adno t p rev io us ly test ifi edwho were ei th er p res en t at th e sc en e o f th e m

ur de r orin th e g en eral areaimm ed ia te ly foll owi ng th e cri m e; (4) two expe rt a ffi da vi ts ad dr es si ng ba ll is ti c ev id en ce an d e y ewit ne ss id en ti fic at io ns ; (5 ) affi da vi ts of ju ro rs ; an d (6 ) a g en eral cach e o f ad di ti on al affi da vi ts . Bas edon th is ev id en ce, Dav is cla im edth atto ap pl y Geor gi a’s pr oc edur es fo r anex tra or di na ry

m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l i n am an ne r th atall ows forhi s ex ecu ti on wou ldbe un co ns ti tu ti on al . The s ta te tri al co urt “ ex haus ti ve ly revi ewed each subm it te d a ffi da vi t an d c on si de redin gre atde ta il th e rel ev an t tria l t es ti m on y , if a ny, corre sp on di ng to each .” St at e v. Dav is , No. CR8 9- 24 67 -FR, at3 (Ga . Supe r. Ct . Ju ly 13, 2 00 7) . It o bs erv edth atth e m ajor it y of t he affi da vi ts th atDavi s subm it te d h adbe enswo rnov er fi ve y ears earl ie r, an d afew h adbe enatt es te d t o ov er t eny ears earl ie r. The s ta te tri al co urt co nc lu de d t ha t s om e o f th e aff id av it s co nt ai ne d i na dm is si bl e h ears ay , th atth e p os t-tria l af fid av it s b y

so m e o f th e St at e’s witne ss es di d n otco ns ti tu te cau se fora ne w tri al , andth atsev eral affi da vi ts were no t s o m at eri al th atth ey

wou ldha ve pro du ceda di ffer en t re su lt . The s ta te co urt ul ti m at el y

de ni edth e m ot io n. Dav is th enfil edanap pl ic at io n fo r di sc ret io na ry ap pe al an d am ot io n fo r a st ay of e xe cu ti on inth e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia . Whi le th e ap pl ic at io n was 5pe nd in g, Geo rg ia ’s Sta te Bo ardof P ard on s an d P aro le s g ran te d atem po rary sta y of ex ecu ti on an d s ch edul edit s o wn h eari ng . Se e Ga. Cod e Ann . §§ 42 -9 -3 9( d) (1 99 7 & Supp . 20 08 ) (g ran ti ng Geor gi a’s St at e Bo ardof P ard on s an d P aro le s

“ au th or it y

to pa rd onan y

pe rs on co nv ic te d o f a cri m e who is subs eque nt ly de te rm in edto be in no cen t o f sa idcri m e”); § 4 2- 9- 42 (a) (r equi rin g m ajor it y vo te of Geo rg ia ’s Sta te Bo ardof P ard on s an d P aro le s fo r a g ran t o f cl em en cy , par do n, pa ro le , or o th er re li ef fro m sen te nc e). The Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iadi sm is se d Dav is ’s m ot io n fo r st ay

of e xe cu ti on as m oo t an d g ran te d h is ap pl ic at io n fo r di sc ret io na ry

ap pe al . Dav is v. St at e , 28 2 Ga. 3 68 , 36 8, 6 51 S.E.2d10 , 10 (20 07 ). The reaf te r, in a co m

pr eh en si ve op in io n, the Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia affi rm edth e tr ia l co urt’s o rd er d en y in g Dav is ’s ext rao rd in ary m ot io n fo r ne w tri al . Dav is v. St at e , 28 3 Ga. 4 38 , 66 0 S .E.2d35 4 (2 00 8) . In af firm in g, the supr em e co urt b eg anby not in g the lac k o f cre di bi li ty tha t i s g en eral ly affor de d t o reca nt at io n t es ti m on y , exp la in in g t ha t “ [t]ri al tes ti m on y is clo se r in ti m e to th e cri m es , when m em or ie s ar e m or e trus two rth y [, an d] . . . th e tr ia l p ro ces s i ts el f, in cl ud in g p ub li c o aths , cro ss -ex am in at io n, an d t he supe rin te nd en ce o f a tria l jud ge , len ds sp eci al cred ib il it y to tri al tes ti m on y .” Id

. at 4 41 , 66 0 S .E.2dat 3 58 . The supr em e co urt n on ethe le ss pa in st ak in gl y de ta il edeach of t he sev enpo st -tr ia l affi da vi ts by the Sta te ’s ey ewit ne ss es , as wel l as si x a ffi da vi ts fro m ad di ti on al 6witne ss es Davi s l oc at ed , andexpl ai ne d h ow ea ch affi davi t fa il edto supp ort

Dav is ’s ext rao rd in ary m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. Id
. at 4 41 -4 7, 6 60 S.E.2dat 3 58 -6 3. Am on g the se affi da vi ts were thr ee eyewitn es se s wh o h adid en ti fie d Dav is at t ria l as th e o ffi cer’s s ho ot er, an d wh o Dav is cla im edha d re can te d t he ir t ria l t es ti m on y : Ant oi ne W il li am s, Do ro th y Ferre ll , andHarri etMu rray. Afte r de ta il in g t he se po st -tr ia l af

fid av it s, am on g o th ers , th e supr em e co urt p oi nt edto sev eral de fect s i n th em , in cl ud in g the factth atW il li am s’s an d F erre ll ’s affi da vi ts fai le d t o affi rm at iv el y

cla im th atDavi s was no t g ui lt y , andth atMu rray’ s u ns worn a ffi da vi t was y etan ot he r in co ns is te ntst at em en t s he ha d m ad e y ears aft er the m ur de r. The supr em e co urt d et erm in edth atno ne of t he affi da vi ts ha d t he m at eri al it y requi red to supp ort an ex tra or di na ry m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l. The Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaco nc lu de d t hi s way: Part ic ul arl y

in th is de ath p en al ty case wh ere am anm ig htso onbe ex ecu te d, we h av e en de av or edto lo okbe y on d b are l eg al pri nc ip le s th atm ig htot he rwis e b e co nt ro ll in g t o t he co re que st io n o f whe th er a jury pres en te d wi th Davi s’s al le ge dl y -n ew te st im on y wou ldpro babl y fin d h im no t g ui lt y

or g iv e h im

a se nt en ce o th er tha n d eat h. In th at sp iri t, we h av e ch os ento foc us pri m ari ly on o ne of t he requi red sh owi ng s fo r anex tra or di na ry m ot io n fo r ne w tri al , th e requi rem en t th atth e n ew ev id en ce b e “ so m at eri al th atitwou ldpro babl y pro du ce a d iff eren t v erd ic t.” Inweig hi ng th is ne w evi de nc e, we do no t i gn or e th e te st im on y

pre se nt edat tria l, an d, i n fa ct , we fav orth atori gi na l te st im on y ov er the ne w. At lea ston e o rig in al witne ss ha s n ev er reca nt edhi s i n- co urt i de nt ifi cat io n o f Dav is as the sh oo te r, whi ch in cl ud eda de sc rip ti on of h is clo th in g a ndth e lo cat io n h e was in when 7he st ru ckLarry Young . As we h av e n ot edab ov e, m os t o f th e witne ss es to th e cri m e who ha ve all eg ed ly recan te d h av e m erel y st at edth atth ey

no w do no t fe el ab le to id en ti fy th e sh oo te r. At tr ia l, th e jury hadth e b en efi t o f he ari ng fro m witne ss es an d i nv es ti ga to rs cl os e to th e ti m e o f th e m ur de r, in cl ud in g b oth Dav is an d C ol es cl ai m in g t he ot he r was gu il ty. W e si m pl y can no t d is reg ardth e jury’ s ve rd ic t i n t hi s ca se . Id
. at 4 47 , 66 0 S .E.2dat 3 62 -6 3 (c it at io ns om it te d) . Fo ll owi ng th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia ’s op in io n, Geo rg ia ’s Sta te Bo ard of Pard on s an d P aro le s (“ th e Bo ard ”) res ci nd edit s s ta y of e xe cu ti on an d d en ie d Dav is ’s app li cat io n. In s o d oi ng , th e Bo ardto okth e u nu su al st ep of i ss ui ng a 2

“ St at em en t,” a ndno te d t ha t wh il e it“ do es no t g en eral ly comm en t o n d eat h c as es it ha s co ns id eredforcle m en cy [, be cau se ] th e Tro y Davi s ca se . . . rece iv edsu ch ex te ns iv e p ub li ci ty . . . the Bo ard. . . de ci de d t o m ak e anex cep ti on .” The Bo ard 3 ex pl ai ne d t ha t i t h adsp en t a year stud y in g a ndco ns id eri ng th e cas e; th e Bo ard ga ve Davi s’s at to rn ey s an op po rtu ni ty to p res en t ev ery witne ss th ey de si redto supp ort the ir a ll eg at io n tha t the re was do ub t as to Davi s’s g ui lt , andth e Bo ard he ardeach of t he se witne ss es an d que st io ne d t he m clo se ly; th e Bo ardstud ie d t he vo lu m in ou s tria l tran sc rip t, the po li ce i nv es ti ga ti on rep ort, an d t he in it ia l

Geor g ia’s State B oard of Pardons and Par oles, State of Ge org ia, Denia l of Commutation 2 and Stay of Sentenc e of D eath ( Sept. 12, 2008). Geor g ia’s State B oard of Pardons and Par oles, State of Ge org ia, Statement Reg arding 3 Troy Davis Case ( Sept. 28, 2008). 8st at em en ts of a ll th e wit ne ss es ; the Bo ardha d c ert ai n p hysic al ev id en ce re te st ed

an d Dav is in te rv ie wed ; an d “ [a]fteranex haus ti ve rev ie w of a ll av ai labl e in fo rm at io n re ga rd in g t he Troy D av is cas e an d a fte r co ns id eri ng all po ss ib le reas on s fo r gr an ti ng cle m en cy , th e Bo ard. . . de te rm in edth atcle m en cy is no t warra nt ed .” The reaf te r, Dav is pe ti ti on edth e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt fo r certi or ari rev ie w of t he Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia ’s dec is io n. Th e Supr em e Co urt i ni ti al ly gr an te d ast ay

of e xe cu ti on , Dav is v. Geor gi a , 12 9 S . Ct. 2 8 (2 00 8) , bu t s ev eral week s l at er, o n Oct ob er 1 4, 2 00 8, i t d en ie d t he pe ti ti on , th ereb y term in at in g t he st ay , Dav is v. Geor

gi a , 12 9 S . Ct. 3 97 (20 08 ). Davi s t he n b eg anth e p ro ces s i n th is Co urt fo r pe rm is si on to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve fed eral habe as co rp us pe ti ti on . II . DISCUSSI ON Und er the co nt ro ll in g s ta tu te , 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (2 ), a st at e p ris on er m ay rai se a ne w cla im

in a se co ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on in fed eral di st ric t co urt on lyif ath ree-

jud ge pa ne l o f a Un it edSta te s C ou rt o f App eal s fi rs t d et erm in es th atth e ap pl ic at io n m ak es a pr im a fac ie sh owi ng th at : (A) t he pe ti ti on er’s cl ai m

“ rel ie s o n ane w rul e o f co ns ti tu ti on al law, m ad e ret ro act iv e to cas es on co ll at eral rev ie w by th e Supr em e Co urt, tha t was pre vi ou sl y un av ai labl e,” o r (B) i t re li es on 9fact s tha t (i ) co ul d n othave be endi sc ov eredpre vi ou sl y th ro ug h t he ex erci se of du e d il ig en ce, an d t ha t (i i), i f pr ov en , wou ld“ es tabl is h b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g ev id en ce tha t, b utfor

co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fo un d the ap pl ic an t g ui lt y of t he un de rlyin g o ffen se .” 28 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(2 )(A)– (B) (2 00 6) . A “pr im a fac ie sh owi ng ” o f th es e requi rem en ts is

“ si m pl y a su ffi ci en t s ho win g o f po ss ib le m eri t t o warran t a f ul le r expl or at io n b y th e d is tri ctco urt.” Ben ne tt v. Uni te d Sta tes , 11 9 F .3d46 8, 4 69 (7t h C ir. 1 99 7) (ci te d i n In re Ho ll ad

ay , 33 1 F .3d11 69 , 11 73 –7 4 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 3) ); Reyes
Req ue na v. Uni te d Sta tes , 24 3 F .3d89 3, 8 99 (5t h C ir. 2 00 1) . After p ai ns ta ki ng rev ie w of t hi s ca se , we con cl ud e th atDavi s h as co m pl et el y fai le d t o m eetth e pr oc edur al requi rem en ts of § 22 44 (b )(2 ), an d, the refo re, we are co ns tra in edto rejectDavi s’s ap pl ic at io n t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on in th e di st ric t co urt. W e b eg in by obs erv in g tha t i t i s n otcle ar atall un de r th e cas e la w whet he r th e cl ai m th atDavi s n ow ra is es — a fre es ta nd in g a ctua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m — i s vi ab le on fed eral habe as co rp us rev ie w. In Herre ra v. Co ll in s , 50 6 U.S. 3 90 , 41 7, 11 3 S . Ct. 8 53 , 86 9 (1 99 3) , th e Supr em e Co urt as su m ed“ fo r th e sa ke of arg um en t in de ci di ng [th e] case , th atin a cap it al cas e a tru ly pers ua si ve de m on st rat io n o f ‘actu al in no cen ce’ m ad e aft er tria l wo ul d re nd er the ex ecu ti on of ade fen da nt 10un co ns ti tu ti on al , andwarran t fe de ral habe as rel ie f if th ere wer e n o s ta te av enue op ento pro ces s s uc h acla im .” W e li ke wis e h av e rec og ni zedth e p os si bi li ty of 4 free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m s, se e Felk er v. Tu rp in , 83 F.3d13 03 , 13 12 (1 1t h C ir. 1 99 6) , cer t. gra nt ed , 51 7 U.S. 1 18 2, 1 16 S. Ct. 1 58 8 (1 99 6) , an d c er t. dismiss ed , 51 8 U.S. 6 51 , 11 6 S . Ct. 2 33 3 (1 99 6) (“ [Herre ra ] le ft o pe n t he di ffi cu lt qu es ti on of wh ethe r fed eral habe as co urts m ay en te rta in co nv in ci ng cla im s o f actua l i nn oc en ce.”) , bu t h av e al so reco gn iz edth at“ [c]lai m s o f actua l i nn oc en ce ba se d o n n ewly dis co ve redev id en ce h av e n ev er b een he ldto st at e a g ro un d fo r fed eral habe as rel ie f ab se ntanin de pe nd en t co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o ccu rri ng in th e u nd erl y in g s ta te cri m in al pro ceed in g,” Bro wn le e v. Hal ey , 30 6 F .3d10 43 , 10 65 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ) (quo ti ng Herre ra , 50 6 U.S. at40 0, 1 13 S. Ct. at86 0) . In an y ev en t, fo r pu rp os es of t he in st an t ap pl ic at io n, we n eedno t ad dr es s wh ethe r a

See also id . at 419-21, 113 S. Ct. at 870-71 (O’ Connor, J ., concur ring ) (“ [T] he 4 execution of a leg ally

and fa ctually

innocent per son would be a c onstitut ionally intolerable event,” but resolvingthis iss ue is “ne ither nec essar y nor advisable in this case,” where the petitioner is “not innocent.” ); id . at 428, 113 S. Ct. at 875 (Scalia, J ., concur ring ) (“ Inonetheless join the entirety

of the Court’s opinion, . . . bec ause the re is no leg al er ror in dec iding a

case by assuming, arguendo , that an asse rted c onstitut ional right exi sts. . . .”); id . at 429, 113 S. Ct. at 875 (White, J ., concur

ring ) (“ I assume that a pe rsuasive showingof ‘a ctual innoce nce’ made afte r trial, eve n though ma de af ter the e x piration of the time provide d by law for the pre sentation of new ly discovere d evidenc e, would re nder unc onstitut ional the execution of petitioner in this case .”); id . at 437, 113 S. Ct. at 879 (Blac kmon, J ., dissenting in par t) (B eca use “[e]x ecution of an innoce nt person is the ultimate ‘ar bitrary imposit ion’ . . . from whic h one neve r re cover s and for whic h one ca

n never be compe nsated[,] . . . petitioner may raise a substantive due proc ess challeng e to his punishment on the gr ound that he is ac tually innocent.”) (interna l citations and brac kets omitted). 11pe ti ti on er ca n b rin g afree st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m as d es cri be d i n Herre ra in hi s fi rs t fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on . Thatqu es ti on is no t b efo re u s b ecau se Davi s di d n otbri ng anactua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m purs ua ntto Herre ra in hi s fi rs t fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on . Rath er, the on ly que st io n we f ace i s wh ethe r Dav is canbri ng su ch a cl ai m in a se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on . Becau se itis un di sp ut edth atDavi s’s cu rren t ap pl ic at io n d oe s n otrel y on a ne w rul e o f co ns ti tu ti on al law as pro vi de d fo r un de r § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(A), Dav is m us t s at is fy

th e two pro cedur al requi rem en ts em bo di edin § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) in ord er t o b rin g a Herre ra cla im no w. He has fai le d to m eeteit he r requi rem en t. Co ng res s en act edsec ti on 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) , as i t n ow s ta nd s, as pa rt o f th e Ant it erro ris m

an d Eff ect iv e Deat h P en al ty A ctof 1 99 6 (“ AEDPA”). Pla in ly the st atut e was de si gn ed , am on g o th er re as on s, t o b rin g s om e fi na li ty andcert ai nt y to th e se em in gl y

ne ve r-en di ng co ll at eral att ackpro ces s. Acco rd in g t o t he leg is la ti ve hi st ory , AEDPA’ s fo cu s was to eli m in at e b ot h t he de la y th athabe as fil in gs cau se in a cas e an d t he fil in g o f fri vo lo us habe as cla im s. Se e, e.g . , H.R. Co nf . Rep . No. 10 4- 51 8, at11 1 (1 99 6) , re pr in te d i n 19 96 U.S.C.C.A.N. 94 4, 9 44 . Ind eed , a co m m on th em e th ro ug ho utth e co ng res si on al de ba te s was th e d es ire to pre ve nt habe as pe ti ti on ers fro m

havi ng su cces si ve “bi te s atth e ap pl e.” Se e 14 1 C on g. Re c. S7 80 3, S7 87 7 (1 99 5) (st at em en t o f Sen . Dol e) (“ By im po si ng fil in g d ead li ne s o n 12al l d eat h ro w in m at es , andby lim it in g c on de m ne d k il le rs co nv ic te d i n S ta te or Fed eral co urt t o o ne Fed eral habe as pe ti ti on — o ne bi te of t he ap pl e — t he se la nd m arkrefo rm s wi ll go a lo ng , lo ng way to st ream li ne th e le ng th y ap pe al s pr oc es s . . . .”); 1 41 Co ng . Rec. S1 68 92 , S16 91 3 (1 99 5) (st at em en t o f Sen . Fei ns te in ) (“ [T]his bi ll pro vi de s h ab eas pe ti ti on ers with ‘on e b it e atth e ap pl e.’ It as su res th atno on e co nv ic te d o f a cap it al cri m e wil l b e b arre d fr om see ki ng habe as rel ie f in Fed eral co urt[.]”); 14 1 C on g. Re c. S7 80 3, S7 80 9 (1 99 5) (st at em en t o f Sen . Kenn edy ) (“ The pro po sa l t o l im itin m at es to on e b it e atth e ap pl e is so un d i n pr in ci pl e.”); 14 1 C on g. Re c. S7 80 3, S7 83 2 (1 99 5) (st at em en t o f Sen . Bid en ) (“ The va stm ajor ity

of u s . . . wantto an d h av e b een trying fory ears to ch an ge th e o ld syste m to li m itth e ti m e inwhi ch a pe ti ti on canbe fil edan d t o l im itth e num be r of pe ti ti on s t ha t ca n b e fi le d. So ess en ti al ly y ouge t o ne bi te ou t o f th e ap pl e.”). Infact , th e co di fic at io n o f § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) pl ay edanim po rta ntrol e in ach ie vi ng th is go al by “res tri ct [in g] th e fi li ng of r ep et it iv e p et it io ns by requ iri ng th atan y sec on d p et it io n b e ap pr ov edforfil in g i n t he di stric t co urt b y th e co urt o f ap pe al s.” 1 41 Co ng . Rec. S7 59 6, S7 59 7 (1 99 5) (st at em en t o f Sen . Hatch ). It al so di d s o b y “ co di fy [in g] so m e o f th e p re-e xi st in g [ju di ci al ] li m it s o n s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on s,” Felk

er v. Tu rp in , 51 8 U.S. 6 51 , 66 4, 1 16 S. Ct. 2 33 3, 2 34 0 (1 99 6) — i n whi chsu cces si ve pe ti ti on ers ha d t o s ho w eithe r “ cau se forfai li ng to rai se [th e 13cl ai m s i n the earl ie r pe ti ti on ] an d p reju di ce the refr om ,” or“ th ata fu nd am en ta l

m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e wou ldres ul t fr om a fai lu re t o e nt ert ai n t he cla im ,” McCl es key v . Zan t , 49 9 U.S. 4 67 , 49 4- 95 , 11 1 S . Ct. 1 45 4, 1 47 0 (1 99 1) . Not ab ly, § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) ti gh te ne d t he se li m it s b y requi rin g s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on ers to sh ow bo th “ cau se ” — o r di li ge nc e — as wel l a s “ a fund am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e” — o r actua l i nn oc en ce. In a dd it io n, § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) als o re qu ire s s uc ces si ve 5 pe ti ti on ers to est ab li sh actua l i nn oc en ce b y “ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce,” afar m or e d em an di ng sh owi ng th anth atfou ndin pre vi ou s Supr em e Co urt ca se s, wh ic h ha d re qu ire d o nl y

a “ m or e li ke ly than n ot ” st an da rd . Sc hl up , 51 3 U.S. at32 7, 1 15 S. Ct . at 8 67 . Fo ll owi ng th e en act m en t o f AEDPA, th e Supr em e Co urt h adoc cas io n t o co ns id er the co ns ti tu ti on al it y of t he ne wly ad de d g at ek eep in g re qu ire m en ts fou nd in § 2 24 4( b) . Felk

er , 51 8 U.S. 6 51 , 11 6 S . Ct. 2 33 3. In Felk er , th e Supr em e Co urt re co gn iz edth atAEDPA prev en te d t he Co urt fr om rev ie win g aCo urt o f App eal s o rd er d en y in g l eav e to fil e a s eco ndhabe as pe ti ti on . Id
. at 6 58 –5 9, 1 16 S.
Indeed, “ cause ” in the pre -AEDPA c ase la w was “ based on the principle that pe titioner 5 must conduct a re asonable and dilige nt investigation aimed at includingall rele vant claims and grounds for r elief in the f irst fede ral ha

beas pe tition.” Id. at 498, 111 S. Ct. at 1472. Fur thermore , a “f

undamental misca

rriag e of justice” was satisfied by a petitioner pr esenting“new fac ts [ that] raise[] sufficie nt doubt about [ petitioner’s] guilt to undermine c onfidenc e in the re sult of the trial.” Schlup , 513 U.S. at 317, 115 S. Ct . at 862; see also id. at 327, 115 S. Ct. at 867 (“To e stablish the requisite proba bility , the petitioner must show that it is more likely than not that no rea sonable juror

would have c onvicted him in the light of the new e vidence .”).

14Ct . at 2 33 7. Felk er he ld , ho wev er, tha t the Supr em e Co urt was no t d ep riv edof ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on be cau se AEDPA didno t re m ov e th e Co urt’s au th or it y to en te rta inan or ig in al

pe ti ti on forhabe as co rp us . Id
. at 6 60 , 11 6 S . Ct. at23 38 . The Supr em e Co urt the n h el d t ha t AEDPA di d n otvi ol at e th e Su sp en si on Claus e of th e Co ns ti tu ti on — wh ic h p ro vi de s t ha t “ [t]he Pri vi le ge of t he Writof Habe as Co rp us sh al l n otbe su sp en de d, u nl es s wh eninCas es of R eb el li onor I nv as io n t he publ ic Safe ty m ay

requi re i t,” U.S. Co ns t. art. I, § 9, cl . 2 — reas on in g t ha t: The writof h ab eas co rp us kn ownto th e Fra m ers was qui te di ffer en t fr om

th atwhi ch ex is ts to da y . As we ex pl ai ne d p rev io us ly, th e fi rs t Co ng res s m ad e th e wri t o f habe as co rp us av ai labl e o nl y to pr is on ers co nf

in edun de r th e au th or it y

of t he Uni te d S ta te s, n otun de r st at e au th or it y . The cl as s o f jud ic ia l ac ti on s re vi ewab le by the writ was m or e res tri ct edas we ll . . . . It wa s n otun ti l 1 86 7 t ha t Co ng res s m ad e th e wri t g en eral ly av ai labl e in “ al l ca se s wh ere a ny pers on m ay be res tra in edof h is or he r li be rty in v io la ti on of t he co ns ti tu ti on , or o f an y tre aty or l aw of th e Uni te d S ta te s.” An d i t was no t u nt il well in to th is cen tu ry th at th is Co urt i nt erp ret edth atpro vi si on to all ow a f in al jud gm en t o f co nv ic ti on in a st at e co urt t o b e co ll at eral ly atta ck edon habe as . But we as su m e, fo r pu rp os es of d eci si on he re, tha t the Su sp en si on Claus e of th e Co ns ti tu ti on refe rs to th e wri t as itex is ts to da y , rathe r th anas i t ex is te d i n 1 78 9. The Act re qu ire s a h ab eas pe ti ti on er t o o bt ai n l eav e fro m th e co urt o f ap pe al s b efo re fi li ng a se co ndhabe as pe ti ti on in th e d is tri ct co urt. Bu t thi s re qu ire m en t s im pl y tra ns fers fro m

th e d is tri ctco urt t o th e co urt o f ap pe al s a s cree ni ng fun ct io n wh ic h wo ul d p rev io us ly ha ve be enpe rfo rm edby the di st ric t co urt as requi redby 28 U.S.C. § 22 54 Ru le 9(b ). The Ac t al so co di fie s s om e o f th e p re-e xi st in g l im it s 15on su cces si ve pe ti ti on s, an d fu rth er re st ric ts th e av ai labi li ty of rel ie f

to habe as pe ti ti on ers . Butwe ha ve lo ng reco gn iz edth at“ th e p owe r to awardth e wri t b y

an y of t he co urts of t he Uni te d S ta te s, m us t b e gi ve n b y writ te n l aw,” an d we h av e li ke wis e rec og ni zedth at ju dgmen ts ab ou t the pr op er sco pe of th e wr it ar e “n ormal lyfo r Co ngress to make .” Id
. at 6 63 -6 4, 1 16 S. Ct. at23 39 -4 0 (c it at io ns om it te d andem ph as is ad de d) . The Supr em e Co urt co nc lu de d t ha t the ne w res tri ct io ns fou ndin § 2 24 4( b) fel l wel l withi n c on gr es si on al auth or it y an d d idno t v io la te th e Co ns ti tu ti on . Id
. at 6 64 , 11 6 S. Ct . at 2 34 0. W it h t hi s i n m in d, we turn t o fu lfi ll in g t he ga te ke ep in g fu nc ti on Co ng res s ha s l ai d o utforus in § 2 24 4( b) . A. 28 U.S.C. §

22 44 (b )(2 )(B)(i ) W e m us t co ns id er wh ethe r Dav is ha s m ad e a p rima facie sh owi ng es tabl is hi ng th e fi rs t re qu ire m en t fo un d i n § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) — tha t i s, wh ethe r “ th e factua l p red ic at e fo r” h is Herre ra cla im “ co ul d n othave be endi sc ov ered pr ev io us ly thro ug h the ex erci se of due di li ge nc e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (i) .

“ Wha t m at te rs un de r § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (i) is whet he r [Dav is ], with t he ex erci se of du e d il ig en ce, co ul d h av e d is co ve red[th e fac ts he no w pre se nt s t o u s] at t he ti m e he fil edhi s fi rs t fe de ral habe as pe ti ti on .” Se e Jo rd an v. Se c’y, Dep ’t o

f Co rr ., 48 5 F.3 d 1 35 1, 1 35 9 (1 1t h C ir.) , cer t. d en ie d , 12 8 S . Ct. 4 50 (20 07 ). Becaus e Dav is

16free ly adm it s t ha t v irtua ll y ev ery pi ece o f ev id en ce u nd erl y in g h is Herre ra cla im

“ was di sc ov eredbe fo re o r du rin g M r. Dav is ’s firs t fe de ral habe as pro ceed in gs an d was subm it te d t o t he fed eral habe as co urt fo r co ns id erat io n [o f th e o th er cl ai m s h e br ou gh t i n t ha t p et it io n],” Dav is Br. 1 0, h e d oe s n otarg ue th atth is ev id en ce co ul d no t h av e b eendi sc ov eredpre vi ou sl y th ro ug h due di li ge nc e. Rathe r, he att em pt s t o sk irtth e due di li ge nc e requi rem en t i n ava rie ty of way s. Fi rs t, Dav is su gg es ts th athe was d il ig en t i n g athe rin g t he “ne w” ev id en ce un de rlyin g h is Herre ra cla im be cau se he bro ug htth is ve ry ev id en ce t o t he fir st fed eral habe as co urt. The pro bl em with t hi s ar gu m en t, h owe ve r, is th athe di d n ot pr es en t ev id en ce o f actua l i nn oc en ce t o t he di st ric t co urt i n s up po rt o f a Herre ra free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m . Rath er, h e u se d t hi s ev id en ce o nl y to arg ue th at , un de r Sc hl up , he c ou ldov erco m e th e p ro cedur al de fau ltof t he ot he r co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s h e so ug htto pu rs ue . Thes e d efau lt edco ns ti tu ti on al cla im s in cl ud eda Bra dyvi ol at io n, a Gig li o vi ol at io n, an d a n i ne ffec ti ve -as si st an ce-o fco un se l cl ai m , bu t, s ig ni fic an tl y , di d n otin cl ud e a Herre ra cla im . Se e Dav is , 46 5 F.3 d a t 1 25 1- 53 . He can no t n ow ar gu e th atby sim pl y pre se nt in g t he un de rlyin g ev id en ce i n h is fir stfed eral habe as pe ti ti on in supp ort o f who ll y di ffer en t co ns ti tu ti on al cla im s —witho utan y acco m pa nyin g Herre ra cla im

— h e h as sa ti sf ie d t he du e d il ig en ce p ro ng of t he st atut e. 17Pl ai nl y , th e st atut e d oe s n otsupp ort thi s ar gu m en t. As the st atut e rea ds , a

cl ai m bro ug htin a su cces si ve pe ti ti onm us t b e d is m is se d u nl es s “ th e fac tu al pr ed ic at e fo r th e cl ai m

co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredpre vi ou sl y th ro ug h t he ex erci se of due di li ge nc e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (i) . Davi s co nc ed es th at al m os t al l o f th e fac tu al pre di cat e fo r hi s cl ai m co uld h av e b een di sc ov ered pr ev io us ly, an d i n fa ct , wa s di sc ov eredpre vi ou sl y . Davi s p os se ss edth e “ factua l pr ed ic at e” fo r hi s Herre ra “ cl ai m ” dur in g h is fir stfed eral habe as co rp us pr oc eed in g, an d c ou ldha ve pre se nt edth e cl ai m , bu t ch os e n otto do so . Se e Jo rd an , 48 5 F .3dat 1 35 9 (c on cl ud in g t ha t p et it io ne r fai le d t o s at is fy § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (i) be cau se he actua ll y kn ew of th e fac tu al pre di cat e o f hi s cl ai m whe n h e fi le d h is fir st§ 2 25 4 p et it io n) ; In re Br ya n , 24 4 F .3d80 3, 8 05 (11 th Cir . 20 00 ) (co nc lu di ng th atth e p et it io ne r fai le d t o s at is fy § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (i) be cau se he di d n otex pl ai n wh y

a di li ge ntin ve st ig at io n c ou ldno t h av e unc ov eredth e factua l p red ic at e o f hi s cl ai m); In re Ma gw oo d , 11 3 F .3d15 44 , 15 48 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (s am e); In re Bo sh ea rs , 11 0 F .3d15 38 , 15 43 (11 th Cir . 19 97 ) (d en y in g pe ti ti on er’s ap pl ic at io n fo r le av e to fil e a s eco ndhabe as pe ti ti on in a no n- cap it al cas e b ecau se th e ev id en ce p et it io ne r pr es en te d t o p ro ve hi s i nn oc en ce was read il y av ai labl e to hi m

when he li ti ga te d h is fir sthabe as pe ti ti on ).

18Dav is als o m ai nt ai ns th atev enth ou gh he ha d a ll th e n eces sa ry ev id en ce, h e co ul d n otha ve bro ug hta Herre ra free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m in hi s fi rs t fed eral habe as pe ti ti on be cau se he ha d n otex haus te d h is st at e rem ed ie s. Th is arg um en t i s fo recl os edby Sup rem e Co urt p rece de nt , beg in ni ng with Ros e v. Lu nd y , 45 5 U.S. 5 09 , 10 2 S . Ct. 1 19 8 (1 98 2) , inwhi ch th e p lu ral it y op in io n h el d th atdi stric t co urts sh ou lddi sm is s “ m ix edpe ti ti on s” — tho se with e xh au st edan d un ex haus te d c la im s —

an d t ha t p et it io ne rs with s uc h p et it io ns ha ve two op ti on s. Se e Bur to n v . St ewa rt , 54 9 U.S. 1 47 , 15 4, 1 27 S. Ct. 7 93 , 79 7 (2 00 7) (ci ti ng Ros e , 45 5 U.S. at52 0- 22 , 10 2 S . Ct. at12 04 -0 5) . They m ay : (1 ) withd raw the m ix ed pe ti ti on , exh au stth e rem ai ni ng cla im s, an d re tu rnlat er t o d is tri ctco urt wi th a fu ll y ex haus te d p et it io n; or ( 2) pro ceedwith o nl y th e ex haus te d c la im s, al th ou gh do in g so ris ks subjec ti ng lat er p et it io ns th atrai se ne w cla im s t o “ rig or ou s p ro cedur al ob st acl es .” Id

. (ci ti ng Ros e , 45 5 U.S. at52 0- 21 , 10 2 S . Ct. at12 04 -0 5) . Davi s ob vi ou sl y ch os e to pro ceedwith t he sec on d o pt io n, an d c an no t n ow av oi d t he

“ rig or ou s p ro cedur al ob st acl es ” fo un d i n § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) . Ind eed , as t he Supr em e Co urt h as m or e rec en tl y

he ld , “ a p et it io ne r wit h une xh au st edcla im s wh o c ho os es . . . to pro ceedto ad

jud ic at io n o f hi s ex haus te d c la im s . . . m ay [no t] lat er as se rt t ha t a subs eque ntpe ti ti onis no t ‘sec on d o r su cces si ve ’ pr eci se ly becau se hi s n ew

19cl ai m s wer e une xh au st edat t he ti m e h e fi le d h is fir stpe ti ti on .” Bur to n , 54 9 U.S.

at15 4, 1 27 S. Ct. at79 7. 6 Mo reo ve r, an d p erh ap s ev enm or e fund am en ta ll y , Davi s h as fai le d t o ad equa te ly exp la in why he ha d n otex haus te d h is st at e rem ed ie s co nc ern in g t he Herre ra cla im

pri or to fil in g h is fir stfed eral habe as pe ti ti on . As he free ly adm it s, he ha d the “ li on ’s sh are” of i nf orm at io n h e n eed edto pe rfec t a Herre ra free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m at t he ti m e h e fi le d h is fir stfed eral habe as pe ti ti on . As a res ul t, h e co ul d h av e b ro ug hthi s Herre ra cla im earl ie r in th e st at e co urts , whi ch wou ldha ve all owe d h im to ex haus t h is cla im

pri orto fil in g h is fir st fed eral habe as pe ti ti on . In fa ct , Geor gi a law exp res sl y pro vi de s t ha t h e co ul d h av e br ou gh t an ex tra or di na ry m ot io n fo r a n ew tr ia l t o t he Geor gi a co urts at a ny tim e. Se e Ga. Cod e Ann . §§ 5-5 -2 3, 4 0, 4 1 (1 99 7 & Supp . 20 08 ).

To the extent Davis sug g ests the Supreme Court ha s cre ated a n exception to Rosein 6 Panetti v. Quarterman , 127 S. Ct . 2842 (2007), that e x ception does not a pply here . In Panetti , the Supreme Court re define d “sec ond or succ essive” to e x clude a n application includinga mental incompetenc y

claim, but notably limited its holdi ngto incompetency claims bec ause a ll prisoners are at risk of de teriorations in their menta l state, and may not become inc ompetent until well after their petition is filed. Panetti , 551 U. S. at ___, 127 S. Ct . at 2853 (“ Congr ess did not intend the provisions of AEDPA addr essing‘sec ond or succ essive’ pe titions to gove rn a f iling in the unusual posture pre sented he re: a § 2254 application ra ising a [n] . . . incompetenc y claim filed a s soon as that claim is ripe.” ) (e mphasis added) ; see also id. at ___, 127 S. Ct. at 2866–67 (Thomas, J., dis senting ) (“ Today ’s dec ision thus s tands only for the pr oposition that [mental incompetenc y] claims som ehow de serve a spec ial (and unjustified) e x emption from the statute’s plain import.”). Da

vis’s actua l innocence claim, on the other hand, is not the kind of claim that would not ripen until sometime in the future like an inc ompetency claim. 20Fi na ll y , eve n i f he ha d n otfir stbro ug hthi s Herre ra cla im to th e st at e co urts , Davi s n on ethe le ss co ul d h av e g on e fo rwardwith h is Herre ra cla im in hi s fir stfed eral habe as pe ti ti on by atte m pt in g t o o ve rco m e h is pro cedur al de fau ltwith a sh owi ng of “ cau se an d p reju di ce” o r an“ actua l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.” Se e 7 Free man v. Att ’y Gen
. , 53 6 F .3d12 25 , 12 31 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ) (“ Whe n ast at e pr is on er fa il s t o e xh au sthi s fe de ral cla im s i n s ta te co urt p ur su an t t o i nd ep en de nt an d a de qu at e st at e p ro cedur al rul es be fo re b rin gi ng hi s h ab eas pe ti ti on , ‘ fed eral habe as rev ie w of the cla im s i s b arre d u nl es s the pri so ne r can de m on st rat e cau se fo r th e d efau ltan d a ctua l p reju di ce as a res ul t o f th e al le ge d v io la ti on of f ed eral la w, or d em on st rat e th atfai lu re t o c on si de r th e cl ai m s wi ll res ul t i n afun da m en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e.’”), cer t. d en ie d , __ _ U. S. _

__ , 12 9 S . Ct. 9 21 , __

_ (2 00 9) . Yet, fo r rea so ns he do es no t p ro vi de — an d wh ic h h is co un se l h as su gg es te d wer e pu rel y tac ti cal — h e fai le d t o p ur su e ei th er o pt io n.

8 We assume, without deciding , that an unexhausted Herrera claim is subject to the 7 proce dural de fault rules, which allow for a fe dera l court to hea

r an une x hausted c laim if the petitioner has shown “ causeand pre judice” or

an “a ctual miscar

riag e of justice.” See M

ize v. Hall , 532 F.3d 1184, 1195 n.9 ( 11th Cir. 2008) (statingin dicta that “if a petitioner in fac t has a fre estandingactua l innocenceclaim, he would beentitled to have a ll his procedura l defa ults excused as a matter of c ourse unde r the funda mental miscarriag e of justice e x ception”) ; see also Brown v. Hooks , 176 F. Appx. 949, 954–55 (11th Cir. 2006) (unpublished) (va catingthe district court’s de cision dismis sing a petition with prejudice so that the district cour t could deter

mine whether either of the two “na

rrow c ircumstance s” could a pply to excuse the proce dural de fault of the petitioner’s une x hausted a ctual-innoc ence claim base d on a new ly discovere d aff

idavit). Davis also has a

rgued that he c ould not have brought his Herrera claim until he soug ht 8 relief from Ge org ia’s State B oard of Pardons and Par oles, rely ing on la nguag e in Herrera that a 21Bec au se Davi s d idno t b rin g h is Herre ra cl ai m du rin g h is fir stfed eral habe as pe ti ti on , andcan no t ex cu se hi s fa il ur e to do so on ex haus ti ongro un ds , Dav is is lef

t wi th rel y in g o n a ny evi de nc e in supp ort o f hi s Herre ra cl ai m th at

“ co ul d n otha ve be endi sc ov eredpre vi ou sl y th ro ug h t he ex erci se of due di li ge nc e.” 2 8 U.S.C. § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (i) . Davi s co nc ed es th atof t he 27 ex hi bi ts in supp ort o f hi s Herre ra cl ai m th athe subm it te d a lo ng with h is ap pl ic at io n t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on , on ly one sat is fie s t hi s p ro cedur al requi rem en t: a Sep te m

be r 20 08 affi da vi t o f tr ia l wi tn es s B en jam in Gord on . 9 W e ag ree tha t the 20 08 Gord on affi da vi t, an d o nl y th is affi da vi t, s at is fie s th e requi rem en t o f du e d il ig en ce em bo di edin§ 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (i) . Gord on was a witne ss at Dav is ’s tri al , andhi s s to ry ha s ch an ge d m ark ed ly sin ce tha t t im e. Inhi s in it ia l p ol ic e st at em en t, Go rd on di sc us se d ash oo ti ng at apa rty tha t t oo k p la ce i n fre estandingactua l innocenceclaim may be viable only

“if ther e we re no state avenueopen to proce ss such a c laim.” 506 U.S. at 417, 113 S. Ct. at 869. However , a per son seekingto establish his innocence of a c rime under Geor g ia law may

apply for a pardon “ any

time after

conviction,” State Boa rd of Par dons and Paroles Rule 475- 3-.10(3) (a) (2007), signifying that Davis could have e x hausted this state ave nue bef ore he filed his first fede ral ha beas pe tition. The other

aff idavits are the se: Gar

y Har grove – 8/17/01; J oseph Washington – 12/5/96; 9 Har riet Murra

y – 10/14/02; Anthony

Har grove – 8/20/01; Shirley Riley – 8/18/01; Darold Taylor – 8/20/01; Tony a Johnson – 12/ 6/96; Anita Dunham Saddler – 7/10/02; April Heste r Hutchinson – 7/2/02; P eg g ie Gra

nt – 7/11/02; Daniel Kinsman – 10/15/02; Kevin McQuee n – 12/5/96; J eff rey Sapp – 2/9/03; Monty

Holmes – 8/17/01; Darre ll “D.D.” Collins – 7/11/02; L arr y Young – 10/11/02; Dorothy

Fe rre ll – 11/29/00; Antoine Will iams – 10/12/02; April Hester Hutchinson –11/30/95; Abdus-Salam Karim – 10/8/02; Robert Grizz ard – 3/23/03; Be njamin Gordon – 2/10/03; Mi chae l Cooper – 2/10/03; J oseph “Papa ” B lige – 12/1/95; L amar Br own – 11/2/95; and Professor Jeffr ey

S. Neuscha

tz – 7/ 6/07. 22Cl ov erd al e imm ed ia te ly prio r to Offic er Ma cPh ai l’s s ho ot in g, an d s ai d t ha t the

sh oo te r atth e Cl ov erd al e p arty was wea rin g awhi te Bat m ansh irt , whi te Nik e sh oe s, an d jean s, an d was m adbe cau se Gord on an d h is fri en ds were atth e p arty . The Sta te in tro du cedev id en ce attri al su gg es ti ng th atth e sh oo te rs at b ot h lo cat io ns were the same pers on , andcal le d B en jam in Gord on to tes ti fy . At tria l, Go rd on tes ti fie d t ha t h e d idno t s ee the sh oo te r atth e Cl ov erd al e pa rty andth athe di d n otrem em be r te ll in g t he po li ce an y of t he de ta il s ab ou t the sh oo te r. In a20 03 affi da vi t, Go rd on sai d t ha t Dav is ha d n otbe enam on g t he gr oup o f pe op le at t he Clo ve rd al e p arty , rei te rat edth athe ha d n otsee n t he sh oo te r, an d s ai d t ha t the po li ce h adth reat en edhi m , so he ha d s ig ne d t he po li ce re po rt witho utread in g i t. Inhi s 2 00 8 a ffi da vi t, Go rd onsai d t ha t h e h adpo ss es se d ad di ti on al in fo rm at io n i n 2 00 3, b utha d n otsh areditbe cau se itin vo lv eda fam il y m em be r, RedCo le s, an d Go rd on was wo rri edab ou t g et ti ng in tro ub le with the po li ce. Gor do n re affi rm edth e co nt en ts of h is earl ie r affi da vi t, b utad de d t ha t Co le s h adsu gg es te d t o h im , lo ng aft er the sh oo ti ng , th athe (Co le s) was t he on e who ha d k il le d Off

ic er Ma cPh ai l. The re i s n ot hi ng to in di cat e th atDavi s co ul d h av e p rev io us ly dis co ve red th is in fo rm at io n wi th th e ex erci se of due di li ge nc e. Infact , bec au se Gord on pr ev io us ly execu te d an a ffi da vi t tha t was fav or ab le to Davi s, the re was no reas on 23fo r Dav is to be li ev e th atGord on ha d o m it te d a ny inf orm at io n. As a res ul t, we co ns id er the 20 08 Gord onaffi da vi t i n d et erm in in g wh ethe r Dav is ha s s at is fie d § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ). B. 28 U.S.C. §

22 44 (b )(2 )(B)(i i) W e tu rnth ento th e se co ndrequi rem en t n eces sa ry to fil e a s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on un de r AEDPA, em bo di edin § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ), an d c on cl ud e th atDavi s can no t s at is fy

§ 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ) fo r two in de pe nd en t re as on s. Fi rs t, i n a na lyzin g t hi s re qu ire m en t, we co ns id er wh ethe r a Herre ra free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m is th e k in d o f cl ai m

th atcanbe he ardin a se co nd or su cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on . W e b eg in , as we m us t, wi th th e p la in la ng ua ge of t he st atut e. As we h av e o fte n s ai d, “ [t]he st art in g p oi ntforall st atut ory in te rp ret at io n i s t he lan gu ag e o f th e st atut e it se lf.” Uni te d Sta tes v. DBB, In c. , 18 0 F .3d12 77 , 12 81 (11 th Cir . 19 99 ). Ind eed , “ [t]he fir strul e in st atut ory co ns tru ct io n i s t o d et erm in e whe th er the lan gu ag e atis su e h as a pl ai n a nd un am bi gu ou s m ean in g wi th reg ardto th e p art ic ul ar d is pu te . If th e st atut e’s m ean in g i s p la in an d u na m bi gu ou s, the re i s n o n eedforfurth er i nqui ry .” Uni te d St at es v. Si lv a , 44 3 F .3d79 5, 7 97 –9 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 6) (qu ot at io n m ark s o m it te d) (quo ti ng Uni te d Sta tes v. Fish er , 28 9 F .3d13 29 , 13 37 –3 8 (1 1t h C ir. 2 00 2) ). W e

“ as su m e th atCo ng res s u se d t he word s i n ast atut e as th ey are co m m on ly and 24or di na ril y

un de rs to od , andwe readth e st atut e to gi ve ful l ef fectto each of i ts pr ov is io ns .” DBB, Inc. , 18 0 F .3dat 1 28 1. Pu t d iff eren tl y , we “ m

us t p res um e th at Co ng res s s ai d wh atitm ean t an d m ean t wh atitsai d.” Sh ot z v. Cit y o f Plan ta ti on , Fla
. , 34 4 F .3d11 61 , 11 67 (11 th Cir . 20 03 ) (quo ta ti on m ark s o m it te d) . Sect io n 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ) pr ov id es th atne w evi de nc e subm it te d wi than ap pl ic at io n t o fi le a se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on m us t “ be su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li sh by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th at , bu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou ndth e ap pl ic an t g ui lt y of t he un de rlyin g o ffen se .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ). Und er the pl ai n l an gu ag e o f th e st atut e, § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ) requi res bo th cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e o f actua l i nn oc en ce — “ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce tha t . . . no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fo un d the ap pl ic an t g ui lt y of t he un de rlyin g o ffen se ” — as wel l a s an ot he r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n —“bu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r.” Itis , ineffe ct , an “ actua l in no cen ce p lu s” st an da rd . The s ta tu to ry lan gu ag e m ak es pe rfec t s en se in th e co nt ex t o f a ty

pi cal co ns ti tu ti on al cla im , su ch as o ne ari si ng un de r Bra dy , Gig li o , or Stri cklan d , or wh ere s om e o th er co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n b ei ng co m pl ai ne d o f is no t b as edup on th e g ui ltor i nn oc en ce o f th e p et it io ne r. Howev er, the st atut ory

lan gu ag e d oe s n otread il y acco m m od at e Dav is ’s free st an di ng Herre ra cla im . In fac t, i n o rd er t o app ly the st atut e to hi s cl ai m , § 2522 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ) wou ldhave to be readto say tha t the ne w evi de nc e m us t “ be su ffi ci en t t o e st ab li shby clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th at , bu t fo r th e fa ct th at th e a pp li ca nt wa s a ct ua ll

y in no cen t , no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou nd th e ap pl ic an t g ui lt y

of the un de rlyin g o ffen se .” Thi s re ad in g wo ul d re nd er the

“bu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r” l an gu ag e en ti rel y supe rfl uo us , requi rin g ape ti ti on er on ly to s ho w “ cl ear a ndco nv in ci ng ev id en ce” o f actua l i nn oc en ce i n o rd er t o sa ti sf y th e se co ndpro ng of t he st atut e. It i s, o f co ur se , in co nc ei vabl e th ata pe rs on wou ldbe fou ndno t g ui lt y “bu t fo r” —

or “ ex cep t fo r” —

hi s ac tu al in no cen ce; rathe r, a p ers on is fou ndno t g ui lt y pre ci se ly becau se of h is actua l i nn oc en ce. We can no t re adst atut ory

lan gu ag e in a way

th atren de rs itwho ll y

m ean in gl es s o r no ns en si cal . Whi le “ [th is ] m od ifi cat io n m ay be anap pe al in g i m

pr ov em en t i n [Dav is ’s] ey es , . . . we are n otli cen se d t o p ract ic e st atut ory rem od el in g.” Uni te d St at es v. Gri

ff ith , 45 5 F .3d13 39 , 13 44 (11 th Cir . 20 06 ). “ Ourfun ct io n i s t o app ly st atut es , to carry

ou t the ex pr es si on of t he leg is la ti ve wil l tha t i s embod ie d i n th em , no t t o ‘im

pr ov e’ sta tu te s b y

alt eri ng th em .” W

ri gh t v. S ec’yfo r the Dep’ t o

f Co rr . , 27 8 F .3d12 45 , 12 55 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ). The s ta tu te un de ni ab ly requ ire s a pe ti ti on er s eek in g l eav e to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on to est ab li shactua l in no cen ce b y

cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e an d an ot he r co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n.

26Si m

pl y pu t, Dav is ha s n otm etth e st atut e’s pr oc edur al requi rem en ts forlea ve to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on . Bu t ev enif we wer e to co m pl et el y readou t o f th e st atut e th e p hr as e “bu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r” an d a ss um e ar gu en do th ata Herre ra cla im , witho utm or e, is th e k in d o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro r co nt em pl at edby § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ), th e Gor do n affi da vi t i s p la in ly ins uf

fic ie ntto est ab li sh a pr im a fac ie sh owi ng th at , bu t fo r th is ev id en ce, n o re as on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou ndDavi s g ui lt y of t he un de rlyin g o ffen se . Accor di ng to Gord on ’s 20 08 affi da vi t, i n 1 99 5 o r 19 96 , Red Co le s t ol d Go rd onth at“ he [(Co le s) ] sh ou ld n’t h av e d on e th at ” whe n t he y were ta lk in g abo utth e o ffi cer s ho ot in g. Go rd on to ldCo le s t o c le ar i t up b ecau se th ey ha d s om eo ne lo ck edup forth e m ur de r, an d C ol es cri ed . This affi da vi t i s m urky; it do es no t u nam

bi gu ou sl y est ab li sh th atCo le s co nf es se d t o t he m

ur de r. Bu t, m or e im

po rta nt , th e aff

id av it , st an di ng alo ne , do es no t n eg at e th e res t of th e St at e’s ev id en ce attri al . The p ro se cu to r’s cas e in cl ud edth e p res en ta ti on of fo urey ewit ne ss es to th e o ffi cer’s s ho ot in g wh o u na m bi gu ou sl y id en ti fie d Dav is as th e sh oo te r. Furth er, the Sta te ’s evi de nc e sh owe d tha t Dav is was t he on e to st rik e Larry You ng , a ho m el es s m anwho , acco rd in g t o t he ev id en ce, was hi t i n t he he ad by the same pers on who sh otOffic er Ma cPh ai l. The pro se cu ti on als o e st ab li sh ed th atDavi s co nf

es se d t o t he m

ur de r to Jef

frey Sapp an d Kev in McQu een . Becau se 27th is ev id en ce re m ai ns in pl ace, Go rd on ’s affi da vi t d oe s n otov erwh el m in gl y

bo ls te r th e cre di bi li ty of Dav is ’s witne ss es — i nc lu di ng Jo se ph W as hi ng to n, wh o sa idat t ria l tha t h e sa w Col es sh oo t the off ic er, an d Tan y a Jo hn so n, wh o s ai d a t tri al th atCo le s l oo ke d n erv ou s af te r th e sh oo ti ng — t o t he po in t wh ere n o reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve cred it edth e St at e’s wit ne ss es . Insh ort, we ar e co ns tra in edby the st atut ory requi rem en ts fou ndin § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) to co nc lu de th atDavi s h as no t ev enco m e cl os e to m ak in g apri m a faci e sh owi ng th athi s Herre ra cla im rel ie s o n fa ct s (i ) th atco ul d n othave be en di sc ov eredpre vi ou sl y

th ro ug h t he ex erci se of due di li ge nc e, an d (ii ) th at , if pr ov en , wou ld“ es tabl is h b y cle ar an d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th at , bu t fo r co ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou ndth e ap pl ic an t gu il ty of th e u nd erl y in g o ffen se .” 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) . He, th eref or e, can no t fi le a su cces si ve pe ti ti on . C. Equ itab le gr ou nd

s Dav is su gg es ts , ho wev er, tha t we ar e n otbo un d b y th e p ro cedur al requi rem en ts pl acedon us by Con gr es s i n § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) , andth atwe m ay gra nt hi m pe rm is si on to fil e h is Herre ra cla im in a su cces si ve pe ti ti on , on equi tabl e gr ou nd s. Th is arg um en t, i t s eem s, i s b as edon Davi s’s as su m pt io n t ha t we ar e h is

28la stres ort, tha t n o o th er co urt o r le ga l b od y canhe ar h is cla im

of i nn oc en ce. W e rem ai n u np ers ua de d. As an in it ia l m at te r, Dav is ha s ci te d n o c as e au th or it y forth e n ot io n t ha t we can ig no re the ga te ke ep in g re qu ire m en ts fou ndin § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) , andwe ha ve be enun ab le to fin d a ny. On the co nt rary, whe n the Supr em e Co urt re vi ewedth e co ns ti tu ti on al it y

of t hi s p reci se st atut ory

pro vi si onin Felk

er , itob se rv edth at“ th e ne w res tri ct io ns on su cces si ve pe ti ti on s [d eri ve fro m ] . . . a com pl ex an d e vo lv in g bo dy of equi tabl e p rin ci pl es in fo rm edan d c on tro ll edby his to ric al us ag e, st atut ory de ve lo pm en ts , andjud ic ia l d eci si on s.” 5 18 U.S. at 6 64 , 11 6 S . Ct. at23 40 (quo ta ti onm ark s o m it te d) . It co nc lu de d t ha t “ [t]he ad de d re st ric ti on s wh ic h t he Act p la ces on sec on d h ab eas pe ti ti on s ar e wel l wi th in th e co m pa ss of [ th e wri t o f habe as co rp us ’s] ev ol ut io nary pro ces s . . . .” Id
. In o th er wo rd s, h ab eas co rp us is , atit s co re, anequi tabl e rem edy , and§ 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) is Co ng res s’s co di fic at io n o f anequi tabl e st an da rd . Neithe r Co ng res s n orth e co urts ev er h av e h in te d tha t an ad di ti on al equi tabl e ex cep ti on to § 2 24 4( b) ’s gen eral ban o n s eco ndor s uc ces si ve fed eral habe as pe ti ti on s ex is ts . As a p an el of t hi s C ou rt h as ob se rv ed , “ [w]e hav e ne it he r th e p owe r no r th e in cl in at io n t o turn b ackth e cl oc k a ndpre te ndth atth e AEDPA was n oten act ed . It was en act ed , andit s p ro vi si on s g ov ernsec on d o r su cces si ve pe ti ti on s.” Jo rd an , 48 5 F .3dat 1 35 9 (c it at io n o m it te d) .

29Bu t ev enif we c ou ldso m eh ow em pl oy our equi tabl e p owe rs as g at ek eep er rev ie win g asu cces si ve pe ti ti on an d i gn or e th e p la in requi rem en ts fou ndin § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) , Davi s h as no t p res en te d u s wi th a sh owi ng of i nn oc en ce s o co m pe ll in g t ha t we wo ul d b e o bl ig edto actto day . Rath er, the reco rd , in cl ud in g al l o f th e p os t-t ria l af

fid av it s, i s, atbe st , to rtu redan d d iff ic ul t. In de ed , th e Geo rg ia tri al co urt an d Geo rg ia ’s supr em e co urt h av e twi ce p ars edth ro ug h a ll of t hi s ev id en ce an d d et erm in edth atitwas i ns uf fic ie ntto est ab li sh Davi s’s i nn oc en ce. In ad di ti on , Geor gi a’s St at e Bo ardof P ard on s an d P aro le s h el d ahe ari ng , qu es ti on in g ev ery witne ss Davi s’s at to rn ey s p res en te d t o s up po rt t he ir a ll eg at io n t ha t the re was do ub t as to Davi s’s g ui lt ; s tu di edth e v ol um in ou s t ria l tran sc rip t, the po li ce in ve st ig at io n re po rt, a ndth e in it ia l s ta te m en ts of a ll th e wit ne ss es ; h adcert ai n ph y si cal ev id en ce re te st edan d Dav is in te rv ie wed ; an d u lt im at el y co nc lu de d t ha t cl em en cy was n otwarran te d. Ourrev ie w of the reco rdis who ll y co ns on an t wi th th e rep eat edco nc lu si on s of th e st at e co urts an d t he Sta te Bo ardof P ard on s an d P aro le s. Fo r st art ers , we rep eat ed ly hav e n ot edth at“ recant at io ns are v ie wedwith e xtrem e su sp ic io n b y th e co urts .” Uni te d Sta tes v. S an ti ag o , 83 7 F .2d15 45 , 15 50 (11 thCir . 19 88 ); Uni te d St at es v. Smi th , 43 3 F .2d14 9, 1 50 -5 1 (5 th Cir . 19 70 ) (quo ti ng New man v. Uni te d St at es , 23 8 F .2d86 1, 8 62 n.1 (5t h C ir. 1 95 6) ). Thi s m ak es sen se , bec au se as 30Ju st ic e Bre nn anon ce ex pl ai ne d, re can ta ti on tes ti m on y “up se ts so ci ety ’s in te res t i n th e fi na li ty of co nv ic ti on s, i s v ery of te n u nr el iabl e an d g iv enforsu sp ectm ot iv es , an d m os t o fte n s erv es m erel y to im pe achcu m

ul at iv e ev id en ce ra th er tha n t o un de rm in e co nf

id en ce i n t he accu racy of th e co nv ic ti on .” Dob be rt v. W ai nw ri gh t , 46 8 U.S. 1 23 1, 1 23 3- 34 , 10 5 S . Ct. 3 4, 3 6 (1 98 4) (Bre nn an , J., di ss en ti ng ). W e th us ap pr oa ch th e rec an ta ti onaffi davi ts with s om e sk ep ti ci sm , as we m us t, an d, re vi ewin g t he reco rdas awho le , rem ai n u np ers ua de d. To be gi n wi th , fo urey ewit ne ss es to Offic er Ma cPh ai l’s m ur de r te st ifi edat t he tri al an d i de nt ifi ed Dav is as t he sh oo te r: S te ve San de rs , Harri etMurray, Ant oi ne W il li am s, an d Dor othy Ferrel l. The fir stey ewitne ss , Ste ve San de rs , an Ai r Fo rce s erv ic em an , was sea te d i n ava n i n t he pa rk in g l otne ar the si te of t he sh oo ti ng . He un am bi gu ou sl y id en ti fie d Dav is as t he sh oo te r an d d idno t b ackoff of h is id en ti fic at io n wh enhe was p res se d o n c ro ss -ex am in at io n, t es ti fy in g t ha t “ y ou do n’t fo rg etso m eo ne th atst an ds ov er an d s ho ot s s om eo ne .” San de rs ha s subm it te d no po st -tr ia l af fid av italt eri ng hi s eyewitne ss acco un t. Ano th er eyewitn es s, Harr ie t M urray, was s it ti ng in th e p ark in g l ot , andwas a fri en d o f Larry Y ou ng , th e h om el es s m anwho was s tru ckby O ffi cer M acPh ai l’s sh oo te r. At tr ia l, Mu rray tes ti fie d t ha t s he ha d i de nt ifi edDavi s fr om th e p ic tu res th e p ol ic e h adsh own he r as th e m anwho “ hi t Larry an d s ho t the po li ce,” a ndth at 31whe n s he saw Dav is ’s pi ctur e sh e was “ real sh ak edup .” Not ab ly, sh e al so

id en ti fie d Dav is as t he sh oo te r in a co urtro om id en ti fic at io n. Bu t ev enif we wer e to co ns id er Mu rray’ s 2 00 2 un sw or n affi da vi t, i n i t s he do es no t b ackoff of h er co urtro om

id en ti fic at io n o f Dav is as b ei ng th e sh oo te r. It s im pl y ad ds an in co ns is te nc y

co nc ern in g wh ethe r th e sh oo te r ve rb al ly thre at en edLarry Young be fo re s tri ki ng hi m . And , bec au se he r po st -tr ia l af fid av itis un swo rn , li ke th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg ia , we are l oa th to co ns id er i t, an d a ffo rditpre ci ou s l it tl e weig ht , if an y . Se e Dav is , 28 3 Ga. at44 3. In an y ev en t, ev enco ns id eri ng Mu rray’ s u ns worn a ffi da vi t, b ot h S an de rs an d M urray un am bi gu ou sl y id en ti fie d Dav is as t he sh oo te r of

Offic er Ma cPh ai l, an d the ir i de nt ifi cat io ns rem ai n i nt act . The two ot he r ey ewit ne ss es , W il li am s an d F erre ll , als o i de nt ifi edDavi s at tri al as h av in g s ho t an d k il le d Off ic er Ma cPh ai l. Acco rd in g t o t he ir p os t-t ria l affi da vi ts , th ey

ha ve reca nt edth ei r id en ti fic at io ns , bu t al l tha t the y no w dec la re i s th atth ey di d n otsee who th e sh oo te r was or wh athe was wea rin g. Th e am bi gu it y of W il li am s’s an d F erre ll ’s po st -tr ia l af fid av it s fa ll s fa r sh ort o f a co m pe ll in g sh owi ng or, fo r th atm at te r, a p rima facie sh owi ng of Da vi s’s i nn oc en ce. Dav is als o p oi nt s t o s ev eral po st -tr ia l af fid av it s av erri ng th atRedCo le s co nf es se d t o Off

ic er Ma cPh ai l’s m

ur de r. Yet, attri al , th e jury hear d Dav is an d Co le s g iv e co nf

li ct in g t es ti m on y : Co le s i de nt ifi edDavi s as th e o ne who hi t Larry 32You ng inth e h ead , andDavi s t es ti fie d t ha t Co le s h itYou ng in th e h ead . Neithe r,

ho wev er, i de nt ifi edth e o th er as th e sh oo te r. The ju ry ch os e to be li ev e Co le s. Bu t ev enif we wer e to who ll y di sc ou ntCo le s’s t es ti m on y , Davi s’s tria l t es ti m on y st il l squa rel y co nf li ct s wi thth e te st im on y

of v ari ou s wi tn es se s, i nc lu di ng San de rs , Mu rray, andev enLarry

You ng , who tes ti fie d t ha t the on ly m anwho sp ok e th at ni gh t was th e o ne arg ui ng with h im , whi le Davi s t es ti fie d t ha t h e twi ce t ol d C ol es to st op bo th eri ng th e m an . In a dd it io n, Dav is ’s tes ti m on y als o s qu arel y

co nf li ct s with t he tes ti m on y

of R edCo le s’s s is te r, Vale rie Co le s, wh o t es ti fie d t ha t Dav is ha d c om e to he r ho us e to ch an ge sh irt s af te r th e sh oo ti ng , whi le Davi s t es ti fie d th athe ha d n ev er b eento he r ho us e. All to ld , th e te st im on y

by Murr ay

an d S an de rs rem ai ns ; the two ot he r ey ewit ne ss es do no t n ow i m pl ic at e an y on e, m

uc h l es s C ol es ; Co le s co nt in ue s t o im pl ic at e Dav is ; an d t he tes ti m on y of Larry You ng an d Val eri e Co le s s ti ll co ll id es with Dav is ’s. Whe n we v ie w all of t hi s ev id en ce as a who le , we can no t h on es tl y sa y th atDavi s ca n e st ab li sh by clearan d c on vi nc in g e vi de nc e th ata jury w ou ld no t h av e fo un d h im

gu il ty of Offi cer M acPh ai l’s m ur de r. W e are als o u np ers ua de d b y Davi s’s s ug ge st io n t ha t h is cla im of i nn oc en ce ha s n otbe enan d wi ll ne ve r be he ard . As th e rec or d s ho ws, b ot h t he st at e tr ia l co urt an d th e Supr em e Co urt o f Geo rg iaha ve pa in st ak in gl y rev ie wed , and 33reject ed , Davi s’s cl ai m of i nn oc en ce. Lik ewis e, Geo rg ia ’s Sta te Bo ardof P ard on s an d P aro le s t ho ro ug hl y

rev ie wed , andreject ed , hi s cl ai m , eve n c on du ct in g fu rth er res earc h andbri ng in g i n wi tn es se s t o h ear the ir r ecan ta ti on s i n p ers on . Mo reo ve r, Dav is st il l m ay pe ti ti on th e Uni te d S ta te s Supr em e Co urt t o h ear hi s cl ai m un de r it s o rig in al juri sd ic ti on . The Supr em e Co urt h as m ad e cl ear t ha t th e h ab eas co rp us st atut e, ev enaft er the AEDPA am en dm en ts of 1 99 6, co nt in ue s to all ow i t t o g ran t a wri t o f habe as co rp us fil edpu rs ua ntto it s o rig in al juri sd ic ti on . Se e Felk

er , 51 8 U.S. at66 0, 1 16 S. Ct. at23 38 ; se e a ls o S pi vey v . St at e Bd. o

f Pa rdon s & Par ol es , 27 9 F .3d13 01 , 13 04 n.4 (11 th Cir . 20 02 ); In re Medin a , 10 9 F .3d15 56 , 15 64 (11 thCir . 19 97 ), ov erru le d o n o th er gr ou nd s b y St ewa rt v. Mar ti ne

z- Vil la re al , 52 3 U.S. 6 37 , 11 8 S . Ct. 1 61 8 (1 99 8) . The Supr em e Co urt re st edth is co nc lu si on — tha t AEDPA “ ha s n otrep eal ed[it s] au th or it y to en te rta inori gi na l h ab eas pe ti ti on s,” —on th e fac t tha t “ [n ]o pr ov is io n” ev en“ m en ti on s [i ts ] au th or ity to en te rta in ori gi na l h ab eas pe ti ti on s.” Felder , 51 8 U.S. at66 0, 1 16 S. Ct. at23 38
. II I. CONCLUSI ON Si nc e Dav is ha s fa il edto m eeteit he r of th e st atut ory

requi rem en ts fou ndin AEDPA, 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) , we are co ns tra in edto de ny him lea ve to fil e a se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on . Butbe cau se Davi s s ti ll m ay fil e a h ab eas co rp us 34pe ti ti on in th e Supr em e Co urt, p ur su an t t o i ts ori gi na l juris di ct io n, we s ha ll

co nt in ue th e st ay

of e xe cu ti on for30 da y s fr om th e d at e o f th e fi li ng of t hi s op in io n. Atth e ex pi rat io n o f th e 3 0 d ay ti m e p eri od , th is st ay

sh al l b e au to m at ic al ly lift ed . APPLICATI ON DENI ED.

35BARKETT, Circ ui t Jud ge , di ss en ti ng :

Thi s ca se hi gh li gh ts th e d iff ic ul ti es inna vi ga ti ng AEDPA’ s t hi ck etof pr oc edur al bra m

bl es . Whi le we m

us t d eal with t he th orny con st itut io na l an d st atut ory qu es ti on s b efo re u s, we al so can no t l os e si gh t o f th e u nd erl y in g i ss ue in th is cas e. Sim

pl y pu t, the is su e is whethe r Tro y Antho ny Davi s m ay

be lawf ul ly ex ecu te d wh enno co urt h as ev er co nduc te d ahe ari ng to ass es s t he rel iabi li ty of th e sc or e o f affi da vi ts th at , if re li ab le , wou ldsat is fy th e “ th res ho ldsh owi ng ” fo r “ a tru ly pers ua si ve de m on st rat io n o f actua l i nn oc en ce,” t hu s en ti tl in g Dav is to habe as rel ie f. Herrer a v . Col li ns , 50 6 U.S. 3 90 , 41 7 (1 99 3) (qu ot at io n o m it te d) . Inth e aff id av it s, s ev enof n in e k ey tri al witne ss es reca nt edth ei r te st im on y whi chpo in te d t o Dav is as Off ic er Ma cPh ai l’s m

ur de rer. Th e two rem ai ni ng no nreca nt in g wi tn es se s wer e Sy lv es te r “ Red ” Co le s, wh o was hi m se lf a ll eg edto ha ve be enth e sh oo te r inaffi da vi ts , andSte ve San de rs , who id en ti fie d Dav is at tria l two y ears aft er the in ci de ntde sp it e ad m it ti ng to po li ce i m m ed ia te ly foll owi ng th e sh oo ti ng th athe wou ldno t b e ab le to reco gn iz e th e sh oo te r. The m ajor it y

of t he affi da vi ts supp ort the de fen se ’s th eo ry th at , aft er Co le s race d t o t he po li ce s ta ti on to im pl ic at e Dav is , th e p ol ic e d ire ct edall of t he ir e ne rg y to ward s b ui ld in g acas e ag ai ns t Dav is , fai li ng to in ve st ig at e th e p os si bi li ty tha t Co le s h im se lf wa s t he actua l m ur de rer. Fo r ex am

pl e, no ne of t he ph ot os pr ead s 36sh own to ey ewit ne ss es ev enin cl ud eda pi ctur e o f Co le s. Ad di ti on al ly, th ree

affi an ts no w st at e th atCo le s co nf es se d t o t he ki ll in g. To ex ecu te Davi s, i n the face of asi gn ifi can t am ou ntof p ro ffer edev id en ce tha t m ay est ab li sh hi s ac tu al in no cen ce, i s u nc on sc io nabl e an d u nc on st itut io na l. The m ajor it y

tak es th e p os it io n t ha t we ca nn otpe rm itDavi s t o b rin g h is ev id en ce b efo re the di st ric t co urt b ecau se ou r di sc ret io n t o d o s o i s co ns tra in edby AEDPA. ButAEDPA cann otpo ss ib ly be ap pl ie d wh ento do so wou ldoff en d t he Co ns ti tu ti on an d t he fun da m en ta l co nc ep t o f jus ti ce tha t an in no cen t m ansh ou ld no t b e ex ecu te d. In th is cas e, th e ci rcu m st an ces do no t fi t n eat ly int o the na rro w pr oc edur al co nf

in es de li m it edby A EDPA. Butitis pre ci se ly thi s t y pe of o ccas io n th atwarran ts jud ic ia l i nt erv en ti on . As Ju st ic e Fo rta s n ot ed : The sco pe an d fl ex ib il it y of t he writ[of

habe as co rp us ]—it s capa ci ty to reac h a ll m anne r of

il le ga l d et en ti on—i ts ab il ity to cu t thr ou gh ba rri ers of f

orm an d p ro cedur al m azes —h av e al way s b een em ph as iz edan d jeal ou sl y

gu ard edby cou rts an d l awm ak ers . The v ery na tu re o f th e wri t d em an ds th atitbe adm in is te redwith t he in it ia ti ve an d fl ex ib il ity

ess en ti al to in su re tha t m is carr ia ge s o f jus ti ce wi th in it s reac h a re s ur face d a ndco rrec te d. Harri s v . Nels on , 39 4 U.S. 2 86 , 29 1 (1 96 9) . BACKGRO UND The fact s o f th is cas e cen te r aro un d the ni gh t o f Fri da y , Aug us t 1 8 a ndth e earl y m orni ng of S atur da y , Aug us t 1 9, 1 98 9, i n S av an na h, Geo rg ia . It i s 37un di sp ut edth at“ Red ” Co le s was ha ras si ng an d fo ll owi ng a ho m el es s m an , Larry

You ng , betweena po ol ha ll an d aBu rg er Ki ng pa rk in g l ot . Davi s an d Darrel l

“ D.D.” Col li ns als o wer e p res en t dur in g s om e p orti onof t he ha ras sm en t. So m eo ne hi t Yo un g, n earb y po li ce o ffi cer M arkMac Ph ai l re sp on de d, an d so m eo ne sh otMac Ph ai l thr ee t im es . The po li ce h adno lea ds un ti l Co le s wen t t o t he po li ce s ta ti onth e d ay aft er th e m ur de r, adm it te d t ha t h e was on e o f th e th ree i nd iv idua ls in vo lv edin th e al te rcat io n wi th Larry

You ng , andim

pl ic at edDavi s i n t he Mac Ph ai l s ho ot in g. The re i s n o d is pu te th atth e p ol ic e fo cu se d e xc lu si ve ly on Dav is as asu sp ect be cau se of C ol es ’s st at em en t. The witne ss es at t ria l p rimaril y id en ti fie d t he sh oo te r as th e p ers on weari ng a whi te sh irt . Howev er, the to ta li ty of th e ev id en ce, in cl ud in g t he affi da vi ts , con ta in s co nf li ct in g e vi de nc e ab ou t wh atco lo r sh irt s Dav is an d C ol es were wear in g, wi th tes ti m on y th ateach was wea rin g awhi te sh irt . The two tri al witne ss es who cla im edth atDavi s co nf es se d t o the sh oo ti ng ha ve si nc e rec an te d i n s worn a ffi da vi ts . Add it io na ll y , th ree wi tn es se s wh o d id 1 no t t es ti fy

at t ria l h av e si nc e subm it te d s worn a ffi da vi ts st at in g t ha t Co le s co nf es se d t o t he m

th athe was t he sh oo te r, an d o ne of t he Sta te ’s tri al witne ss es
Moreove r, one of

the two supposed conf

essions offe red at trial was entire ly inconsistent 1 with the events of the night in question as r eporte d by all other re levant witnesses, sug g esting that littl e if a

ny cre dibilit y

should be aff

orded to that “ confe ssion.” 38subm it te d aswo rnaffi da vi t s ta ti ng th atCo le s es se nt ia ll y co nf es se d t o h im , bu t tha t he ha d n otsai d a nyth in g s oo ne r be cau se he an d C ol es were re la te d. Th us , no on e atth is ti m e co nt en ds th atDavi s h as ev er co nf es se d t o t he sh oo ti ng ; co nv ers el y , m ul ti pl e witne ss es m ai nt ai n t ha t Co le s h as co nf es se d. DISCUSS IO N I. A Cla im

of Ac tu al Inn oc en ce Is a Co gn iz ab le Co ns ti tu ti on al Cla im . InHerrer a, th e Supr em e Co urt as su m ed , “ fo r th e sa ke of a rg um en t . . . , th at in a cap it al cas e a tru ly pers ua si ve de m on st rat io n o f ‘actu al in no cen ce’ m ad e aft er tri al wou ldren de r th e ex ecu ti on of ade fen da ntun co ns ti tu ti on al , andwarran t fed eral habe as rel ie f if

th ere wer e n o s ta te av enue op ento pro ces s s uc h acla im .” 50 6 U.S. at41 7. With ou t ex pl ic it ly ann ou nc in g ast an da rdby whi ch to jud ge su ch a cl ai m , th e m ajor it y

st at edth atth e requi redth res ho ldsh owi ng of i nn oc en ce

“ wou ldne ces sa ril y

be ex tra or di na ril y

hi gh ,” in li gh t o f th e d is rupt iv e eff ectof en te rta in in g s uc h acla im an d t he en orm ou s b ur de n o n ast at e co urt o f ha vi ng to retry a cas e. Id . The m ajor it y th enhe ldth atHerrer a’s sh owi ng of i nn oc en ce fe ll sh ort o f su ch a st an dard . Id. at41 8- 19 . Ina co nc urrin g o pi ni on , Ju st ic e O’Con no r, joi ne d b y Ju st ic e Ken ne dy, st at edth at , reg ard le ss of wh ethe r on e u se d t he “ ve rb al form ul a” fr om th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t o r Fo urte en th Am en dm en t, “ th e ex ecu ti on of aleg al ly andfactua ll y 39in no cen t p ers on wou ldbe a co ns ti tu ti on al ly int ol erab le ev en t.” Id . at 4 19 .

Non ethe le ss , bec au se th e rec or d “ ov erwh el m in gl y de m on st rat e[d ]” Herrera’s g ui lt , sh e co nc urredin th e d en ia l o f rel ie f. Id. at42 1. 2 Ju st ic e Bl ackm

un , join edby Jus ti ces Ste ve ns an d S ou te r, di ss en te d fr om th e de ni al of r el ie f an d e xp la in edth atth e m ajor it y ’s di sc us si on of t he va li di ty of a free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m was d ic tu m

be cau se th e Supr em e Co urt de ci de d t he cas e b as edon ly on t he ass um pt io n tha t Herrera ’s cla im was v al id . Id. at43 0. J us ti ce Bl ackm

un de cl aredth at“ th e Co ns ti tu ti on for bi ds th e ex ecu ti on of a p ers on who ha s b een va li dl y co nv ic te d a ndsen te nc edbu t wh o, n on ethe le ss , can pr ov e h is in no cen ce wi th ne wly di sc ov eredev id en ce.” Id . at 4 31 . He exp la in ed th atth e ex ecu ti on of a n a ctua ll y in no cen t p ers on vi ol at edth e Co ns ti tu ti on ’s ban on cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t an d i ts gu aran te e o f subs ta nt iv e due pro ces s. Id . at43 1- 37 . Bet weenJu st ic e O’Con no r’s co nc urren ce an d J us ti ce Bl ackm un ’s di ss en t, fiv e jus ti ces ag reedth atth e ex ecu ti onof a n a ctua ll y in no cen t p ers on wou ldvi ol at e th e Co ns ti tu ti on . Con si st en t wi th th e o pi ni on s o f fi ve jus ti ces in Herrer a, I b el ie ve

Unlike the re cord in He rre ra, theevidenc e pre sented by Davis in support of his ac tual 2 innocenc e cla im is si gnificant a nd compelling . 40th atth e Eig ht h a ndFo urte en thAm en dm en ts pro hi bi t the ex ecu ti on of a n a ctua ll y

in no cen t i nd iv idua l. W it h re sp ectto th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t, i t i s ab su rdto su gg es t tha t ex ecu ti ng a pe rs on for

a cri m e o f whi ch he is in no cen t d oe s n otam ou ntto cru el an d u nu su al pu ni sh m en t. In de ed , th e Supr em e Co urt h as he ldth atex ecu ti on vi ol at es th e Eig hth Am en dm en t fo r se ve ral off en se s co m

pa rat iv el y

les s s ev ere th anm ur de r, in cl ud in g rape . Cok er v . Geor gi a, 43 3 U.S. 5 84 (19 77 ). The C ou rt ha s al so he ldth atth e ex ecu ti on of m en ta ll y ret ard edpe rs on s an d ju ve ni le of fen de rs vi ol at es th e Eig ht h Am en dm en t b ecau se su ch pe rs on s ar e le ss cri m in al ly cu lp ab le . Atk in s v . Virg in ia , 53 6 U.S. 3 04 (20 02 ) (m en ta ll y ret ard edpe rs on s) ; Ro pe r v. Si m

m on s, 5 43 U.S. 55 1 (2 00 5) (juv en il e o ffen de rs ). Si m il arl y , th e ex ecu ti on of o ne who is actua ll y in no cen t, b utfou ndleg al ly gu il ty, cl earl y

run s co nt rary to s oc ia l co ns en su s. As Ju st ic e Bl ackm un st at edin hi s Herreradi ss en t, i t i s “ crystal cle ar tha t the ex ecu ti on of an i nn oc en t p ers on is at od ds with c on te m

po rary stand ard s o f fai rn es s an d d ecen cy .” 50 6 U.S. at43 1 (quo ta ti onom it te d) . Obv io us ly, th e ex ecu ti on of a n a ctua ll y in no cen t i nd iv idua l ha s n othi ng to do with t he go al s o f cri m in al pu ni sh m en t. Su chanex ecu ti on wou ld se rv e n o re tri bu ti ve purp os e n orha ve any de te rren t v al ue . See Ken ne dy v. Lou is ia na , 55 4 U.S. _

_, 1 28 S.Ct . 26 41 , 26 61 (20 08 ). On the co nt rary, the

41ex ecu ti on of a n a ctua ll y in no cen t i nd iv idua l u nd erm in es th e le gi ti m acy of th e cri m in al jus ti ce s y st em ’s po wer t o p un is h. Se e Herre ra, 5 06 U.S. at 4 33 -3 4 (Bl ackm un , J., di ss en ti ng ) (n ot in g t ha t “ th e le gi ti m acy of pu ni sh m en t i s in ex tri cab ly int ertwin edwith g ui lt ”). Lik ewis e, th e Fo urte en th Am en dm en t’s Du e Pro ces s C laus e p ro hi bi ts st at es fro m de pr iv in g a ny pers on of l ife or l ib erty witho utdu e p ro ces s o f law.

“ [S]ub st an ti ve du e p ro ces s p rev en ts th e g ov ern m en t fr om en ga gi ng in co nduc t tha t sh oc ks th e co ns ci en ce, o r in te rfer es with ri gh ts im pl ic itin th e co nc ep t o f or de red li be rty.” Unit edSta te s v . Sal ern o, 4 81 U.S. 73 9, 7 46 (19 87 ) (quo ta ti on s an d ci ta ti on s o m it te d) . “ [C]on du ctin te nd edto in jure in so m e way

un jus ti fiabl e b y

an y go ve rn m en t i nt eres t i s t he so rt o f of fic ia l ac ti on m os t l ik el y

to ris e to th e co ns ci en ce-s ho ck in g l ev el .” Tin ke r v. B eas le y , 42 9 F .3d13 24 , 13 28 (11 thCir . 20 05 ) (quo ti ng Co un ty of Sac ram en to v. Lewi s, 5 23 U.S. 83 3, 8 49 (19 98 )). Cert ai nl y , th e ex ecu ti on of a n a ctua ll y in no cen t p ers on wou ldsh oc k the co ns ci en ce s uc h t ha t i t ru ns afo ul of t he rig htto subs tant iv e due pro ces s. See Herre ra, 5 06 U.S. at 4 30 (Bl ackm un , J., di ss en ti ng ) (“Not hi ng co ul d b e m or e co nt rary to co nt em

po rary sta nd ard s o f de cen cy or m or e sh oc ki ng to th e co ns ci en ce th anto ex ecu te a pe rs on who is actua ll y in no cen t.”) (in te rn al cit at io ns om it te d) . Ju st ic e Bl ackm

un rem ark edth at“ [e]xec ut io n o f anin no cen t p ers on is th e u lt im at e 42arb it rary im

po si ti on ” b ecau se itis on e “ fro m whi ch on e n ev er re co ve rs an d fo r whi chon e can ne ve r be co m pe ns at ed .” Id . at 4 37 (qu ot at io n a ndcit at io n o m it te d) . I do no t b el ie ve th atan y

m em be r of a ci vi li zedso ci ety

co ul d d is ag ree t ha t ex ecu ti ng anin no cen t p ers on wou ldbe anatr oc io us vi ol at io n o f ou r Co ns ti tu ti on an d t he pri nc ip le s upo n wh ic h i t i s b as ed . II. As the Co ns ti tu ti on Pro hi bi ts th e Exe cu ti on of a n Actua ll y Inn oc en t In di vi du al , Habe as Rel ie f Mu stBe Av ai labl e to anActu al ly Inn oc en t In di vi du al Faci ng Exec ut io n. The m ajor it y

op in io n d oe s n otco ns id er wh ethe r fed eral habe as rel ie f m ay ev er b e av ai labl e fo r th e actua ll y in no cen t, b utin st eadco nc lu de s t ha t AEDPA pr oh ib it s t hi s co urt fr om

gra nt in g p erm is si on to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on when th e o nl y

cla im ass ert edis on e o f actua l i nn oc en ce. I d o n otbe li ev e th atAEDPA’ s p ro cedur al ba rs sh ou ldbe readto pre cl ud e th is co urt fr om gra nt in g pe rm is si on to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on to in di vi du al s wh o b rin g a v iabl e fre es ta nd in g a ctua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m . As we h av e rec og ni zed , “ if a pe ti ti on er i n fa ctha s a f

rees ta nd in g a ctua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m , he wo ul d b e en ti tl edto ha ve all hi s p ro cedur al de fau lt s ex cu se d a s a m atte r of co ur se un de r th e fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e ex cep ti on .” Mi ze v . Hall , 53 2 F .3d11 84 , 11 95 n.9 (11 th Cir . 20 08 ).

43Inco ns id eri ng § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ), th e m ajor ity op in io n c on cl ud es th ata free st an di ng actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m is no t the type o f cl ai m

th atm ay be bro ug ht on a se co ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on . Sect io n 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ) requi res “ cl ear a nd co nv in ci ng ev id en ce tha t, b utforco ns ti tu ti on al erro r, no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou ndth e ap pl ic an t g ui lt y of t he un de rlyin g o ffen se .” The m ajor it y op in io n d eci de s t ha t thi s re qu ire s t ha t a c ou rt o f ap pe al s o nl y gra ntpe rm is si on to fil e su cha pe ti ti on when a pe ti ti on er ca n e st ab li sh bo th actua l i nn oc en ce an d a se pa rat e co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o th er than t he actua l i nn oc en ce. Inot he r wor ds , th e “ co ns ti tu ti on al erro r” i n § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ) can no t b e th e actua l i nn oc en ce o f th e ap pl ic an t. Howev er, i t i s i nc on gr

uo us to su gg es t tha t an actua ll y in no cen t i nd iv idua l who canall eg e a co ns ti tu ti on al vi ol at io n o ccu rredat t ria l i s en ti tl edto pe rm is si on to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve pe ti ti on , whi le anactua ll y in no cen t i nd iv idua l wh o can no t i de nt ify any su chvi ol at io n c an no t re cei ve pe rm is si on fro m th is co urt t o fi le su ch a pe ti ti on to pro ve hi s cl ai m , eve n t ho ug h g ran ti ng pe rm is si on m ay pre ve nt hi s u nc on st itut io na l ex ecu ti on . Ind eed , th e u nd erl y in g p rin ci pl e o f a Herre ra actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m

is th atactua l i nn oc en ce re nd ers anex ecu ti on

“ co ns ti tu ti on al ly int ol erab le ev enif [t he de fen da nt ’s] co nv ic ti on was t he pro du ct of a fai r tr ia l.” Sc hl up v. Del o, 5 13 U.S. 29 8, 3 16 (19 95 ) (quo ta ti onom it te d) . It i s 44th e actua l i nn oc en ce o f th e d efen da nt , no t the pre se nc e o f co ns ti tu ti on al erro rs at

tri al , th atren de r anex ecu ti on of a n a ctua ll y in no cen t i nd iv idua l a v io la ti on of t he Eig ht h a ndFo urte en th Am en dm en ts . Accor di ng ly, itsh ou ldbe th e actua l in no cen ce o f th e ap pl ic an t tha t en ti tl es hi m to fil e a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on . Fo r th e sa m e rea so n, the fai lu re t o s at is fy th e d il ig en ce re qu ire m en t o f 28 U.S.C. § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (i) sh ou ldno t b e in te rp ret edto ba r a v iabl e fre es ta nd in g actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m . The co nc ep t o f pu ni sh in g a n i nn oc en t d efen da ntwith t he pe na lty of d eat h s im

pl y be cau se he di d n otfil e h is pape rs as e arl y as h e sh ou ld ha ve is dra co ni an . Mor eo ve r, as th e m ajor it y op in io n a dm it s, atlea ston e aff id av it , th e 2 00 8 Go rd on affi da vi t, do es sat is fy § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (i) . Howev er, the 3 m ajor it y ’s ana lysis of Da vi s’s cl ai m un de r § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ) wit h t ha t af fid av it se rv in g a s t he factua l p red ic at e fo r Dav is ’s cla im is flawed . The m ajor it y

op in io n l oo ks at the Gord on affi da vi t al on e an d c om pa res it with t he Sta te ’s evi de nc e attri al , andfin ds th atth e aff id av itcan no t es tabl is h t ha t

“ no reas on ab le fact fin de r wou ldha ve fou nd[Dav is ] gu il ty of th e u nd erl y in g

Be njamin Gordon’s 2008 a ffidavit implicates Coles as the shoote r both through 3 incidents Gordon witnesse d on the night of the shooting a s well as Gor don’s re lation of an incident in which Coles essentially confe ssed to Gordon that he was the one who shot the offic er.

45of

fen se ,” as requi redby § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ). Howev er, thi s an al y si s co nf us es th e

“ factua l p red ic at e” o f § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (i) with t he “ fact s u nd erl y in g t he cla im ” in § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ) by anal y zi ng on ly the Gord on affi davi t, an d n otth e to ta li ty of Dav is ’s evi de nc e. Whi le th e “ factua l p red ic at e” fo r th e cl ai m m ay be Gord on ’s 20 08 affi da vi t, the re i s n ot hi ng in AEDPA tha t s ug ge st s t ha t thi s co urt co ns id er on ly the “ factua l p red ic at e” wh ende te rm in in g i f § 2 24 4( b) (2 )(B) (ii ) ha s b een sa ti sf ie d. In st ead , th e requi rem en t u nd er § 22 44 (b )(2 )(B) (ii ) th atth is co urt co ns id er the “ fact s u nd erl y in g t he cla im ” su gg es ts th atwe co ns id er al l o f th e rel ev an t fa ct s o f Dav is ’s actua l i nn oc en ce cl ai m , whi ch he re wo ul d i nc lu de all of th e ev id en ce Dav is no w pre se nt s. Whenco ns id eredto ge th er, thi s ev id en ce si gn ifi can tl y

un de rm in es th e ev id en ce p res en te d b y th e St at e attri al . The re i s n o que st io n t ha t, ev enpre -AEDPA, th e p ro cedur al ob st acl es to fil in g asec on d o r su cces si ve habe as pe ti ti on were co ns id erab le . See g en eral ly Sch lup, 5 13 U.S. at 3 17 -1 9. No ne th el es s, the Supr em e Co urt h as “ co ns is te nt ly reaf firm edth e ex is te nc e an d i m po rta nc e o f th e ex cep ti on forfun da m en ta l m is carr ia ge s o f jus ti ce.” Id . at 3 21 . And , parti cu la rly relev an t i n t he pre se ntcas e, th e Co urt h as reco gn iz edth at“ [t]he qu in te ss en ti al m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e is th e ex ecu ti on of ape rs on who is en ti rel y in no cen t.” Id . at 3 24 -2 5. Th us , wher e a de fen da ntwho canm ak e a v iabl e cl ai m of a ctua l i nn oc en ce i s fa ci ng ex ecu ti on , 46th e fu nd am en ta l m is carr ia ge of ju st ic e ex cep ti on sh ou ldap pl y an d AEDPA’s pr oc edur al bars sh ou ldno t p ro hi bi t the fil in g o f a s eco ndor s uc ces si ve habe as pe ti ti on . I res pe ct fu ll y

di ss en t.

47