Case Brief: House V. Bell (2006)

...

Analysis: In Schlup v. Delo it was established by the Supreme Court that federal courts have the right to consider and can deny habeas corpus claims if the petitioner presents new evidence showing that “it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted him.” In Herrera v. Collins it was established by the Supreme Court that “a truly persuasive demonstration of actual innocence would entitle a petitioner to federal habeas relief” and would prove a defendants freestanding innocence. In House’s case it was with due consideration that Herrera v. Collins was not used because the evidence presented did not meet a high enough standard but the evidence did meet just barely the standard for Schlup v. Delo which was used. House’s new evidence that he submitted in the end was sufficient enough and it did change the outcome of his case and finally made not guilty and was allowed to go free.

Conclusion: Yes, the new evidence that House submitted was sufficient enough to allow the court to give House his habeas corpus relief. House new evidence while not wasn’t enough to prove his innocence at face value, but it was interesting enough to that no reasonable juror would have found him guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. So after a long prison stay and multiple attempts to get help from the court House was finally released in 2006 as an innocent man for the murder of Carolyn Muncey. The actual murderer was Carolyn’s husband which he was arrested and tried as a guilty verdict soon after House’s new evidence was presented to the court. I think it was wrong that the court took House’s new evidence of innocence at face value instead of actually looking into and researching the evidence to find the truth. It was also found in this case that new evidence should be deferred to the District Courts for them to evaluate the evidence and not have it taken at face value.