Coleman v. Hardy
2010 U.S. App. LEXIS 23797
| 7th Cir. | 2010Background
- Coleman was convicted in 1983 of murder and armed robbery; eyewitness testimony from Jackson's brother and stepdaughter was sole trial evidence; no forensic evidence linked Coleman to the crime.
- Post-conviction proceedings yielded new affidavits and testimony suggesting another perpetrator and Coleman’s innocence; defense sought an evidentiary hearing to develop these claims.
- The district court denied the habeas petition and the request for an evidentiary hearing.
- The Seventh Circuit remanded to allow an evidentiary hearing to develop evidence relevant to actual innocence and ineffective assistance of counsel.
- New evidence included Barnes’s affidavit alleging a different perpetrator and drug-dealing motive, Rhodes’s affidavit as Barnes’s attorney, and alibi/witness affidavits (Cades and Wilkins), plus statements by Adamson and Wright suggesting alternate theories of the crime.
- Court’s holding is that an evidentiary hearing is warranted to evaluate Coleman's procedural actual innocence claim and the related effective assistance claim.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether an evidentiary hearing is warranted to develop actual innocence evidence | Coleman argues for an evidentiary hearing to test new affidavits. | Respondent contends the record suffices and no hearing is needed. | Yes; an evidentiary hearing is warranted to evaluate new evidence in totality. |
| Whether Coleman’s ineffective assistance claim is procedurally defaulted and can be reached | Coleman asserts cause and prejudice or miscarriage of justice to reach merits. | State argues procedural default bars relief absent exceptions. | The petition can be reviewed on the merits via the gateway of actual innocence if the hearing develops the record. |
| What standard governs the actual innocence gateway in habeas review | Innocence evidence, if new and reliable, could render the trial unreliable. | State argues Schlup standard applies; new evidence must show a reasonable likelihood of innocence. | New evidence must make it more likely than not that no reasonable juror would convict, considering all evidence. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (Supreme Court 1995) (gateway to review actual innocence claims; not require absolute certainty of innocence)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (Supreme Court 2006) (probabilistic assessment of innocence with new evidence; total record reviewed)
- Schriro v. Landrigan, 550 U.S. 465 (Supreme Court 2007) (abuse of discretion standard for evidentiary hearings in habeas cases)
- Ward v. Sternes, 334 F.3d 696 (7th Cir. 2003) (credibility and evaluating state-court findings in habeas review)
- Davis v. Lambert, 388 F.3d 1052 (7th Cir. 2004) (need for hearing to assess exculpatory eyewitness testimony)