McQuiggin v. Perkins
| McQuiggin v. Perkins | |
|---|---|
| Argued February 25, 2013 Decided May 28, 2013 | |
| Full case name | Greg McQuiggin, Warden, Petitioner v. Floyd Perkins |
| Docket no. | 12–126 |
| Citations | 569 U.S. 383 (more) 133 S. Ct. 1924; 185 L. Ed. 2d 1019; 2013 U.S. LEXIS 4068 |
| Opinion announcement | Opinion announcement |
| Case history | |
| Prior | Perkins v. McQuiggin, No. 2:08-cv-139 (W.D. Mich. June 18, 2009); 670 F.3d 665 (6th Cir. 2012); cert. granted, 568 U.S. 977 (2012). |
| Holding | |
| Actual innocence, if proved, serves as a gateway through which a petitioner may pass whether the impediment is a procedural bar or the expiration of the AEDPA statute of limitations. | |
| Court membership | |
| |
| Case opinions | |
| Majority | Ginsburg, joined by Kennedy, Breyer, Sotomayor, Kagan |
| Dissent | Scalia, joined by Roberts, Thomas; Alito (Parts I, II, and III) |
| Laws applied | |
| Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 | |
McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013), was a United States Supreme Court case in which the Court held that judges may review new evidence of actual innocence presented after AEDPA's one-year statute of limitations. This exception is called the "innocence gateway".
The Antiterrorism and Effective Death Penalty Act of 1996 (AEDPA) gives a state prisoner one year to file a federal habeas petition, starting from “the date on which the judgment became final.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244. But if the petition alleges newly discovered evidence, the filing deadline is one year from “the date on which the factual predicate of the claim . . . could have been discovered through . . . due diligence.” 28 U.S.C. § 2244. The innocence gateway is an exception to the one year due diligence requirement for petitioners who have new evidence proving their innocence.
Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg writing for the majority warned that AEDPA's high bar still required judges to find that "it is more likely than not that no reasonable juror would have convicted...in light of the new evidence". Emily Bazelon said this high bar means "in effect...to figure out if people like Perkins are entitled to a hearing about whether they have strong evidence of innocence, judges will have to first hold a hearing to figure out whether there is strong evidence of innocence".