Kidd v. Norman
2011 U.S. App. LEXIS 17984
| 8th Cir. | 2011Background
- Kidd was convicted of first-degree murder in Missouri and sentenced to life without parole.
- Kidd later filed a federal habeas petition under 28 U.S.C. §2254 alleging a Schlup gateway of actual innocence to revive procedurally defaulted claims of ineffective assistance of trial counsel.
- The district court limited 'new' Schlup evidence to Merrill’s testimony and found it unreliable, denying the petition.
- Kidd obtained a certificate of appealability and argued Amrine's definition of 'new' evidence conflicted with Schlup and House v. Bell.
- The Eighth Circuit reviewed de novo, affirming the district court's application of Amrine and rejecting House v. Bell as altering the standard.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether Amrine defines 'new' evidence for Schlup review | Kidd argues Schlup requires plenary review of all evidence old and new. | Norman contends Amrine's 'new' evidence standard governs and is not overruled by Schlup/House. | Amrine controls; 'new' requires unavailable via due diligence. |
| Whether Merrill's testimony alone suffices as 'new' evidence | Kidd asserts additional evidence could be 'new' and undermines defaulted claims. | District court properly limited to Merrill as credible new evidence. | Only Merrill’s testimony was considered new; credibility issues remained. |
| Whether House v. Bell undermines Amrine's standard | Kidd contends House requires plenary review of all evidence old and new. | House does not resolve the meaning of 'new' in Schlup when defaulted claims involve ineffectiveness. | House does not alter Amrine's 'new' evidence standard in this context. |
| Whether additional evidence could have been discovered with due diligence | Kidd proposes other witnesses, records, and alibi corroboration not found at trial. | Evidence not discovered through due diligence remains not 'new' under Schlup. | Even with broader potential evidence, due diligence limitation stands. |
| Overall result of the habeas petition under Schlup | Kidd seeks gateway relief to obtain relief on defaulted claims. | No credible new evidence meets Schlup criteria. | Petition denied; district court’s denial affirmed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Schlup v. Delo, 513 U.S. 298 (1995) (gateway actual innocence standard requires new reliable evidence not presented at trial)
- House v. Bell, 547 U.S. 518 (2006) (Schlup standard applied post-AEDPA; plenary review context clarified)
- Amrine v. Bowersox, 238 F.3d 1023 (8th Cir. 2001) (new evidence must be not available at trial and could not have been discovered with due diligence)
- Houck v. Stickman, 625 F.3d 88 (3d Cir. 2010) (discussed scope of 'new' evidence when defaulted claims involve ineffective assistance)
- Gomez v. Jaimet, 350 F.3d 673 (7th Cir. 2003) (broad interpretation of 'new' evidence not necessarily tethered to trial presentation)
- Nance v. Norris, 392 F.3d 284 (8th Cir. 2004) (applied Amrine's 'new' evidence definition in similar gateway context)
- Osborne v. Purkett, 411 F.3d 911 (8th Cir. 2005) (consistent application of Schlup framework in the Eighth Circuit)
- United States v. Reynolds, 116 F.3d 328 (8th Cir. 1997) (one panel may not overrule another on controlling standard)