Jerry Reeves v. Superintendent Fayette SCI
897 F.3d 154
3rd Cir.2018Background
- May 25, 2006: Armed robbery and fatal shooting at City Gas & Diesel captured on surveillance video showing a single robber; clerk shot and robber jumped over counter and fled on foot.
- Jerry Reeves (18 at the time) gave false statements to police shortly after the crime, was charged with hindering apprehension, and three years later (2009) confessed after a renewed interrogation; his recorded confession and the video were central at trial.
- Police had contemporaneous leads implicating Kai Anderson and Michael Holmes (work-release escapees), multiple third‑party statements that Anderson admitted involvement, and a witness (Johnston) reporting Anderson described nonpublic details; that evidence was not presented at Reeves’s trial.
- Reeves was convicted (robbery, firearms, second‑degree murder) in 2010 and sentenced to life without parole; state PCRA relief was denied; federal habeas petition filed four months late asserting ineffective assistance for failing to present exculpatory evidence and claiming actual innocence.
- District Court dismissed the untimely habeas petition, holding the alleged exculpatory evidence was not “new”; the Third Circuit granted COA on whether the evidence is "new" and whether it meets the Schlup actual‑innocence standard.
- Third Circuit majority held that when ineffective assistance is alleged for failing to discover or present specific exculpatory evidence, that evidence counts as “new” for Schlup purposes; remanded for reliability and holistic gateway analysis.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Reeves’ late federal habeas petition can pass through the Schlup actual‑innocence gateway | Reeves: new, reliable evidence (alternative‑suspect leads, left‑handedness, confession circumstances, mental health, history of lying) shows it is more likely than not no reasonable juror would convict | Government/District Court: evidence was available to defense pretrial and thus not "new," so Schlup gateway not satisfied and petition is time‑barred | Court: Where petitioner alleges ineffective assistance for failing to discover/present the very exculpatory evidence, that evidence is "new" for Schlup; vacated and remanded to assess reliability and, if reliable, whether combined evidence would likely produce reasonable doubt |
| Definition of "new evidence" under Schlup in ineffective‑assistance context | Reeves: "new" includes evidence not presented to the jury even if available earlier | District Court: "new" requires newly discovered evidence not available at trial | Court: Adopts limited rule—if claim is that counsel failed to discover/present the exculpatory evidence that demonstrates innocence, that evidence can be treated as "new" for Schlup |
| Whether the Magistrate/District Court erred by not holding an evidentiary hearing on reliability | Reeves: an evidentiary hearing is required to test reliability of the newly presented evidence | District Court: no hearing because evidence was not new; no gateway showing | Court: Vacated district decision and remanded so trial court can determine reliability and then perform the Schlup holistic analysis; evidentiary hearing may be appropriate on remand |
| Standard for evaluating Schlup gateway after finding "new" evidence | Reeves: must weigh all old and new evidence to determine whether no reasonable juror would convict | Government: maintain high, demanding Schlup standard; impeaching evidence insufficient | Court: Reiterates demanding Schlup two‑step test—(1) new, reliable evidence; (2) preponderance that no reasonable juror would convict when considering all evidence—remand to apply this standard to Reeves’ evidence |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (establishes actual‑innocence gateway and requires new, reliable evidence not presented at trial)
- McQuiggin v. Perkins, 569 U.S. 383 (2013) (untimely habeas petitions may be excused for credible claims of actual innocence)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (courts must weigh all evidence, old and new, in Schlup inquiry)
- Calderon v. Thompson, 523 U.S. 538 (1998) (a credible actual‑innocence claim must be based on reliable evidence not presented at trial)
- Houck v. Stickman, 625 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2010) (articulates Schlup two‑step framework and discusses new evidence requirement)
- Goldblum v. Klem, 510 F.3d 204 (3d Cir. 2007) (new, reliable evidence that undermines identity/motive can satisfy Schlup)
- Amrine v. Bowersox, 238 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2001) (holds "new" means newly discovered and not available at trial)
- Gomez v. Jaimet, 350 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (treats "newly presented" evidence—i.e., not presented at trial—as sufficient for Schlup)
- Sistrunk v. Rozum, 674 F.3d 181 (3d Cir. 2012) (distinguishes factual innocence from legal insufficiency in actual‑innocence claims)