Court Opinion

ID: 9471749
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-08-05 03:39:59.623128+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:42:33.331521
License: Public Domain

*1268JOHN R. GIBSON, Circuit Judge,
dissenting, joined by ROSS, FAGG, and BOWMAN, Circuit Judges.
I would deny the motion for recall of mandate. The motion raises new factual issues and these should be brought before the district court in a new petition for habeas corpus under 28 U.S.C. § 2254. In my view, the recall of mandate simply confuses the clearly new matters upon which evidence must be heard and what has been considered before.
The Court’s order today charges the district court with determining whether the Kumpe evidence should be submitted to the jury. I have some doubt that the order is consistent with Townsend v. Sain, 372 U.S. 293, 317, 83 S.Ct. 745, 759, 9 L.Ed.2d 770 (1963), and Drake v. Wyrick, 640 F.2d 912, 914 (8th Cir. 1981). Newly discovered evidence must bear upon the constitutionality of the detention. Such evidence relevant to the guilt to the state prisoner is not a ground for relief on federal habeas corpus. Further, when newly discovered evidence is considered, issues of whether the evidence was available at the time of trial, both the original criminal trials and habeas corpus hearings, and whether the evidence could have been discovered by due diligence ar appropriate issues for inquiry.