Opinion ID: 2967845
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 2

Heading: cause and prejudice/miscarriage of justice

Text: Reid may demonstrate cause by showing that some objective factor external to the defense impeded counsel’s efforts to comply with the State’s procedural rule. Murray v. Carrier, 477 U.S. 478, 488 (1986). Constitutionally deficient performance of appointed counsel is such a factor, see id., and is the basis on which Reid seeks to establish cause. However, for the reasons discussed above, Reid’s counsel were not ineffective with respect to his guilty plea. A procedural default also may be excused if the petitioner demonstrates that failure to consider the claim[ ] will result in a fundamental miscarriage of justice, Coleman v. Thompson, 501 U.S. 722, 750 (1991), i.e., that a constitutional violation has probably resulted in the conviction of one who is actually innocent, Murray, 477 U.S. at 496. In order to make this showing, a federal habeas petitioner must present new evidence of innocence so strong that a court cannot have confidence in the outcome of the trial unless the court is also satisfied that the trial was free of nonharmless constitutional error. Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298, 316 (1995). 22 REID v. TRUE Reid bases his actual innocence claim on the reports of his sentencing experts, Drs. Herrick and Voskanian, whose conclusions are discussed above. He offers no new evidence at all, and his assertion of actual innocence fails on this basis.