Opinion ID: 1211801
Heading Depth: 3
Heading Rank: 4

Heading: Application for a writ of habeas corpus

Text: Having exhausted the remedies available to him in state court, Newman filed an application for a writ of habeas corpus alleging that there was insufficient evidence to establish that he participated in the murder, either directly or as an aider and abettor. [3] Upon review, the district court found that the Michigan Court of Appeals had failed to consider three important pieces of evidence, that the prosecution had failed to establish a solid chain of inferences at trial, and that there was no evidence placing Newman at the scene of the crime. Newman v. Metrish, 492 F.Supp.2d 721, 730-31 (E.D.Mich.2007). Accordingly, the district court determined that the Michigan Court of Appeals had not reasonably applied the standard articulated in Jackson v. Virginia , noting that although the facts relied on by the court of appeals may have supported a `reasonable speculation' that [Newman] participated in the murder, they did not amount to proof beyond a reasonable doubt. Id. at 729, 732. Thus, the district court unconditionally granted Newman's application for a writ of habeas corpus.