## Facts

- In September 1981, Texas officers David Rucker and Enrique Carrisalez were shot on the same roadway near Brownsville, Texas, during separate encounters with a vehicle.
- At Carrisalez’s shooting, a passenger (Enrique Hernandez) witnessed the event and later testified.
- The vehicle involved was registered to Leonel Herrera’s girlfriend, and Herrera had keys to the car when arrested.
- Investigators identified physical and documentary evidence linking Herrera to the crimes, including a letter bearing his fingerprints and evidence described as blood-related.
- In January 1982, Herrera was convicted and sentenced to death for the capital murder of Officer Carrisalez.
- In July 1982, Herrera pleaded guilty to the capital murder of Officer Rucker.

## Issues

1. Whether the Eighth and Fourteenth Amendments require federal habeas corpus relief when a death-sentenced prisoner presents newly discovered evidence of “actual innocence” without alleging independent constitutional error at trial.
2. Whether a freestanding claim of actual innocence is cognizable on federal habeas review, as distinct from “innocence” used to excuse procedural barriers to reviewing constitutional claims.

## Decision

- The Supreme Court affirmed the Fifth Circuit.
- The Court held that newly discovered evidence supporting a freestanding claim of actual innocence is not, by itself, a ground for federal habeas relief.
- The Court assumed arguendo that, in an extraordinary capital case, a truly persuasive post-trial showing of actual innocence might make an execution unconstitutional, but found Herrera’s submissions insufficient.
- The Court concluded that Herrera’s late-filed affidavits were unreliable and did not overcome the trial evidence supporting guilt.
- The Court identified executive clemency as the traditional mechanism for considering late-emerging claims of innocence after judicial review has been exhausted.

## Legal Principles

- Federal habeas corpus is designed to remedy custody that violates the Constitution; it is not a general forum for relitigating factual guilt after a fair conviction.
- After a valid conviction, the presumption of innocence no longer applies in the same way, and collateral review focuses on constitutional violations in the proceedings.
- “Actual innocence” is traditionally recognized on habeas as a gateway to permit review of otherwise barred constitutional claims, not as an independent substantive claim for relief.
- A freestanding innocence claim based solely on newly discovered evidence is generally not cognizable on federal habeas absent an accompanying constitutional error.
- Even if the Constitution might bar execution upon an extraordinarily strong showing of innocence in a capital case, the evidentiary threshold would be exceptionally high and was not met on this record.
- Clemency serves as the primary post-judgment safeguard for claims of innocence based on evidence emerging after the conclusion of judicial proceedings.

## Conclusion

The Court ruled that federal habeas relief ordinarily cannot be granted on a standalone claim of actual innocence based on newly discovered evidence; without an independent constitutional violation in the state proceedings, such claims are left principally to executive clemency, and Herrera’s late affidavits did not satisfy any hypothesized exceptional standard.


Herrera v. Collins, 506 U.S. 390 (1993)